500 words a day on whatever I want

Are Christians more violent than Muslims?

Warning: Read to the end of the post before jumping to conclusions about where I am going with this post.

Are Christians more violent than Muslims? What does the record say?

Murder rate: White America, like most Christian countries in the Americas, Africa and Eastern Europe, is markedly more violent than most of the Middle East (murders per 100,000 population):

0.6 Bahrain

0.7 Oman

0.8 United Arab Emirates

0.9 Qatar

1.0 Saudi Arabia

1.2 Egypt

1.7 Cyprus

1.8 Jordan

2.0 Iraq

2.1 Israel

2.2 Kuwait

2.2 Lebanon

2.3 Syria

3.0 Iran

3.3 Turkey

3.4 WHITE AMERICA

4.1 Palestine

4.2 Yemen

Terrorist attacks: According to the FBI, only 6% of the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 were carried out by Muslim extremists. Even Jewish extremists carried out more (7%).

War: Wars with at least a million dead:

Christian wars:

years: name: conservative body count in millions

535-554: Gothic Wars: 5.0m

790-1300: Reconquista: 7.0m

1096-1272: Crusades: 2.0m

1337-1453: Hundred Years’ War: 3.0m

1562-1598: French Wars of Religion: 3.0m

1568-1648: Dutch Revolt: 1.0m

1618-1648: Thirty Years’ War: 3.0m

1655-1660: Second Northern War: 3.0m

1763-1864: Russian-Circassian War: 2.0m

1792-1802: French Revolutionary Wars: 2.0m

1803-1815: Napoleonic Wars: 3.5m

1830-1903: War in Venezuela: 1.0m

1882-1898: Conquests of Menelik II of Ethiopia: 5.0m

1910-1920: Mexican Revolution: 1.0m

1914-1918: First World War: 20.0m

1917-1922: Russian Civil War: 5.0m

1939-1945: Second World War: 41.5m (European deaths only)

1946-1954: First Indochina War: 1.0m

1950-1953: Korean War: 1.2m

1955-1975: Vietnam War: 1.1m

1998-2003: Second Congo War: 2.5m

Muslim wars:

1370-1405: Conquests of Tamerlane: 7.0m

1681-1707: Conquests of Aurangzeb: 5.0m

1967-1970: Nigerian Civil War: 1.0m

1980-1988: Iran-Iraq War: 1.0m

1983-2005: Second Sudanese Civil War: 1.0m

1989-2001: Afghan Civil War: 1.4m

Seven times more people have died in Christian wars: 113.8 million compared to the 16.4 million who died in Muslim wars.

There are more Christians, but only about 50% more, nothing like seven times more.

Western history is Eurocentric, so we know more about wars in Christian lands than in Muslim ones. But not for wars since 1900, and there the imbalance is even worse: 73.3 million compared to 4.4 millon – 17 times more dead in Christian wars.

Some blame technology, yet the Muslim world has all the weapons the West had to kill over 100 million people. And yet it did not.

Democide: counts those who died not through war or street crime but through the wilful in/action of government, like genocide or Mao’s Great Leap Forward.

Christian democides of a million or more (does not count communist democides):

940-1917: Russia (tsarist): 2.1m

1095-1272: Crusades: 1.0m

1451-1870: European slave trade: 17.3m

1492-1900: Latin America: 13.8m Amerindians

1600-1900: Caribbean: 10.0m slaves worked to death

1618-1648; Thirty Years War: 5.8m

1651-1987: British Empire: 1.1m (not counting slavery)

1800-1900: Brazil: 1.5m Amazon rubber companies

1900-1920: Mexico: 1.4m

1933-1945: Germany (Nazis): 20.9m

1945-1948: Poland: 1.6m

Muslim democides of a million or more:

400-1900: Iran: 2.0m

1110-1918: Ottoman Empire: 3.9m

1958-1987: Pakistan: 1.5m

1983-2005: Sudan: 1.9m Nuer, Dinka, Christians, Nuba, etc

Christians have killed eight times more people in democides than Muslims: 76.5 million compared to 9.3 million. Almost the same rate as for war.

The mistake here lies not in the numbers but in the words “Christian” and “Muslim”. Sometimes religion is a cause – or at least an excuse – like in the bombings by Christian extremist Eric Rudolph or the genocide in Sudan. But most often it is not. Calling, say, the 9/11 terrorists “Muslim” is like calling Hitler “Christian”: true yet misleading. It is Islamophobia, not a serious attempt to understand the world as it is.

Share this post:

Like this:

Related

844 Responses

Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
Yes, the semantics of Christian vs. Muslim is the issue. Counter-Jihadis of course will point out the Hitler-Mufti relationship. And finally, violence of any kind can usually only be stopped with counter-violence. So zoning in on “terrorism” isn’t the best move possible of the opponents of Islam.

It may be simple oversight, but what of Nigeria, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Libya, Gambia, and Algeria? I would never accuse anyone of intellectual dishonesty, but those are Muslim nations, and none of them seem to have made the list. I mean, Sudan. Islam is the majority religion in the killing fields of Sudan.

Is the omission because no matter where they are, those of African extraction slaughter each other en masse?

In all honest, this is something that I’ve observed all of my life and the actions of those that are supposed to be Christian’s is that they are the most violent and have comitted the worst atrocities to known to humanity. It made me question who is it that they’re really worshipping?

I was taught that Christianity was about doing good toward all men, but as long as I’ve lived, I’ve yet to see any of it. I see more evil than I’ve ever see any good and we all know who’s supposed to be associated with evil.

If your aim is to fight prejudice like this, I can understand, I just think it would be better to demonstrate that a small amount of religious fundimental bombers are the problem not the billion practicing muslims

And it is a reality, two people in Canada are under investigation now for a plot, the French embassy just got bombed, there has to be a way to isolate the extremists without going into the “us against them” type of comparisons with Christianity and Islam…they both have a lot of cruelty in their histories

Your point is well taken. However, it is interesting to note that comparatively, the first century of Christianity, which marked its rapid expansion from Israel into the Roman world, was based on no violence or war being perpetrated by Christians. The foundation of Christian expansion was nonviolent, inclusive of all peoples, and included both poor, working class, and slaves as brothers and sisters in a common faith. This characteristic was lost with the eventual legalization and domination of the faith in the 4th century. Contrast the founding century of Muslim expansion and it is quite different. Whether or not it was the fault of Islam’s prophet, the initial expansion was premised on warfare as well as witness. Indeed, the real question is theological: if followed consistently, Christianity does not conflate Christianity with human orders of power. “Christendom” was invented by the catholic church, largely in opposition to Islam, which makes no separation of God’s coming kingdom and the Muslim’s duty to expand Islam on the earth by witness and, if necessary, warfare. Christ gave no provision to his followers to employ warfare. The question one must ask every Muslim is whether they ultimately wish to live in peace with all men regardless of their religion (or lack of it), or if they want to see Islam prevail over the whole earth. If they say the latter, then the question is to what extent they are willing to go to see that happen.

I agree and I think it comes down to they feel that God justifies this. They are more likely to feel comfortable doing some type of violence simply because of that idea. Most that I have seen will take one minor insert in the bible and attribute that to mean “God wants them to do this.”

Muslims are not one, by far. Currently the Islamic world is undergoing a phenomenon similar to the Inquisition, of course with its own peculiarities and various branches. The sectarians have overrun the traditional, humanist ones. The violence we are witnessing stems mostly from that.

As for the “Christian” violence, I guess you covered it quite well.

Except that these people have nothing to do with Christ. I’m not a believer, but I was brought up as a Catholic. I remember VERY WELL what I read of what is called “Jesus’s word”. And, wow, all I can say is that is had NOTHING to do with what most so-called Christians claim and do. Nothing.

I stopped going to church when I was 16, after a -nice- sermon by a nice priest who was also anti-military and openly leftist. After this sermon that celebrated in very clear ways the importance of welcoming the “stranger”, people who were leaving the church started uttering racist stuff about a group of “Arabs” that were crossing the street in front of us. I thought: “that’s it, I have nothing to do with these people, I know what Jesus’s Word is, I don’t need these idiots and their rituals to know what’s right”.

Even if Jesus never existed, what he is supposed to have said is nice. Apart from that, there are nice things in the Kuran too, in the Bible, in Confusianism, in all Human spiritual visions. There are bad things too.

As my favorite French comedian, the late and regretted Coluche, would say: “Choisis ton camp, camarade !”

“It may be simple oversight, but what of Nigeria, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Libya, Gambia, and Algeria? I would never accuse anyone of intellectual dishonesty, but those are Muslim nations, and none of them seem to have made the list. I mean, Sudan. Islam is the majority religion in the killing fields of Sudan.”

1. Nigeria, Ethiopia and Eritrea are not mostly Muslim. Nigeria is just under half, Ethiopia and Eritrea about a third.

2. I limited myself to wars and democides of a million or more to keep the post within bounds. None of those countries make the list as far as I know. Ethiopia comes the closest – but that would count as Christian violence in any case. Rwanda, also Christian, did not make the list for the same reason (fewer than a million deaths). Ditto Darfur.

Christians (and Jews) have historically been violent b/c the Judeo-Christian god Jehovah condones murder, and even commands it on several occasions in Exodus 31:14, Leviticus 20:13, Numbers 15:35, Deuteronomy 17:12…I can go on and on…

Humans have a history of violence. White people in particular have a very long history of violence against everyone they have come into contact with regardless of religious beliefs. The motivation for the violence of white people has always been power and profit. I think white people are the most violent people on planet earth.

1. I did not forget Musilm violence in India. I got Aurangzeb down for 5.0 million and Pakistan down for 1.5 million. Some say the Indian partition in 1947 caused a million deaths, but I go by conservative figures, which put it below a million.

2. If you can find any documented sources on the numbers killed by the Arab slave trade I will happily include it.

3. I have to constantly write uphill against this White American presumption that they are better than everyone else or, in the case of their bad qualities, no worse than anyone else. BullSHIT. Just as there is no symmetry of racism there is no symmetry of violence. Whites are easily the most violent people the world has seen since the Mongols. It is not even close. This stereotype of violent Muslims, like all their other stereotypes, comes from projection fed by confirmation bias. Till people start calling violence by Christians “Christian”, it is Islamophobic to call violence by Muslims “Muslim”. I do not hear anyone calling Hitler a Christian extremist, he who killed 6 million JEWS. No. For some reason religion never enters into it. Just for those of OTHER religions.

I do think racism, genocide, Islamophobia, etc, have roots in Christianity. Not in anything Jesus said or even in Old Testament slaughter and slavery, but rather in how Catholic culture, and therefore its Protestant offshoots, were shaped by heresies and how they dealt with them. This is where the “different is bad”, “different is screwed up”, “different is a threat” and must be kept down comes from. This is over and above the “us v them” thing that I assume is a human universal.

Religion cannot save anyone. It can only lead a person to his damnation.

How can one be saved? “Acknowledge Jesus Christ and have faith that He is true God and true man. You will be saved in whatever religion you are with because you will pick out what is good and discard what is evil. Therefore, what will save you is your own works and faith in the true God.”

Not surprised.A lot of christians talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.They say don’t do this its wrong to steal,kill,and destroy,yet they do it.When someone else does it they are terrorists.A lot use religion to justify what they do wrong all the while judging others.When people of a certain group do something eveyone is expected to turn a blind eye,but the moment someone else does something similar they declare war and say they are violating human rights.They sometimes use religion to soften people into submission for their evil deeds.

“When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said ‘Let us pray.’ We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.”

Thanks for clarifying , Abagond, about the points you made I missed on India

As far as Arab slavery, I brought in some figures about those killed on the way, but, I couldnt give you exact facts but it wouldnt be acurate to not have any referance….something like “Arab slave trade….numbers unkown”, because you know it was over a million…Im not really trying to count or make it a contest of numbers, feel free if that makes your point to Fox News followers , to make these comparisons …I see plenty of slaughter to go around for all

I can agree Chritianity and the West definitly not being any better than anyone else, or above scrutiny….as far as being just worse than anyone along with the Mongrals….well, I dont know if I totaly agree with that, but , nice to know exactly how you feel about it…I see human cruelty in abundance from all spectrums of the human existance

[…] Are Christians more violent than Muslims? What does the record say? Murder rate: White America, like most Christian countries in the Americas, Africa and Eastern Europe, is markedly more violent th… […]

Thankyou from a Muslim. For a dozen years or so there has been so much misinformation and prejudice against Muslims—that facts—any facts—that are accurate are really welcome.

We are all brothers in humanity—family—and the worst potential in our brother human being is also the worst potential in us—-and the best potential in our brother human being is also the best potential in us…..so as you said Christian or Muslim is not the label we should use but humanity…………I hope that the facts pointed to in the post will awaken in all of us a desire to work for peace and prevent war and voilence

My kids want to leave the US because they are afraid of the level of violence here, and they cannot understand the violent obsession with guns. So violent that the “Christian” murderer of 21 children is seldom if never mentioned, studied and criticized, while the “Muslim” murderers of 4 people (and possibly many more if their bombs had been “better”) are scrutinized from all possible angles, even those that don’t exist, or only in the minds of racists.

Alphonso, I agree with what you said before this:
“I think white people are the most violent people on planet earth.”

Which I think is a little “generalizing”.

Racist politics, which include seeing oneself as “white” and therefore superior, are violent. That’s probably where the root of the problem is. This idea that “whites” (whoever that is, a very fluctuant concept too) are “leaders” is the ultimate violence in its utter arrogance. It’s even arrogant against nature, so it is totally violent.

It’s what leads corporate firms (I think it corresponds to “The motivation for the violence of white people has always been power and profit.” in what you said: Capitalism) to destroy the ecosystem we all live in without caring a bit, because all they see is themselves and their “right”.

Destroying the very planet we live on is even more violent than the rest. It’s inescapable, even by the idiots who do it !!!

Nuclear power, GMOs, chemical fertilizers/herbicides, industrialized agriculture, ALL of it stems from the same utterly STUPID racial/racist arrogance.

Cornlia, I’m not american, I don’t know what is going on in your country, all these episodes involving guns and so on… Just a question: Do you really think there is a christian violence and a muslim violence? Fear generate violence and religion will give you just fear as any other discipline dividing people in categories: fear of the “other”, the “different”, the “infidel”. Less violent civilizations in history were/are probably those which left back religions and all the divisions that come from them. Use your brain, your intelligence… leave clerics to their paranoid fears.

@ futurodellanazione yeah dude look it up it and its internet abbreviation is very rude
am i worse as a white person because i’m fighting addiction and all that ish i have 4 preteen kids i shoot i ride i am a communications specialist
who do you want on your team
you know no further bets

Reading this post is quite frustrating considering all the things you overlooked in order to make your point. For instance the murder statistics in nearly all of the islamic countries are about as accurate as suicide statistics in a ultra conservative catholic country. Or in other words not even close to a third of the real number. And then this, your list of muslim wars:1370-1405: Conquests of Tamerlane: 7.0m
1681-1707: Conquests of Aurangzeb: 5.0m
1967-1970: Nigerian Civil War: 1.0m
1980-1988: Iran-Iraq War: 1.0m
1983-2005: Second Sudanese Civil War: 1.0m
1989-2001: Afghan Civil War: 1.4m
Where did you find this list? In a Wahabist manifesto or something? How did you manage miss all the muslim Caliphates wars? The countless Jihad incursions into Africa, Europe and India? Several was over 1 million casualties I can assure you. And since you obviously know about the Ottoman empire why didnt you include their actual wars and and violent colonialism? Islam was such a fundamental part of their aggressive expansion, just like Christian nations violent expansions. And do you know the reason to why there are hardly any Buddhists in the Middle East any more? Muslims actually considered them lower than Christians and Jews, About 10 million buddhist have been killed in Jihads in Afghanistan, Turkey and other regions. Wahabistic muslims have worked really hard to erase them and their culture from these regions, blowing up ancient Buddha statues and ransacking museums. The total number of Hindus killed in Jihad incursions into India is is close 80 millions. Around 9million christians are thought to have been martyred by muslims. Of course this number is infinetly higher since so little statistics exist on Africans Christian populations that have simply disapeared during Muslim expansions/wars. And why is the Arab slavery so overlooked? Even though you might perhaps not know the actual casualty list does that mean you should ignore it in order to prove a point? Im starting to feel like a broken record now. 2 million africans alone has died in the transports across the Sahara and the Red Sea.

“Where did you find this list? In a Wahabist manifesto or something? How did you manage miss all the muslim Caliphates wars? The countless Jihad incursions into Africa, Europe and India? Several was over 1 million casualties I can assure you.”

That list comes from the Wikipedia. The link is in the post. So are the links to the main sources I used.

If you can document wars, massacres, persecutions, genocides, etc, that led to more than a million deaths, I will gladly add them. But please note that where there is a range, I go by the lowest estimate. The numbers mean “at LEAST these many people were killed”. I am trying not to exaggerate the numbers for either side.

And why is the Arab slavery so overlooked? Even though you might perhaps not know the actual casualty list does that mean you should ignore it in order to prove a point? Im starting to feel like a broken record now. 2 million africans alone has died in the transports across the Sahara and the Red Sea..”

I saw that in the Wikipedia but it had no citation. Can you provide one?

The list is unavoidably incomplete and Eurocentric. I know that. I addressed it in the post:

“Western history is Eurocentric, so we know more about wars in Christian lands than in Muslim ones. But not for wars since 1900, and there the imbalance is even worse: 73.3 million compared to 4.4 millon – 17 times more dead in Christian wars.”

My aim is not to “bash Christians” but to put the shoe on the other foot so “Christians” can see what it feels like and understand how unfair it is. How maddening “facts” can be. How unobjective they are, especially in the service of us v them names.

This post is modelled pretty much directly on the way whites “prove” blacks are more violent than whites by using crime statistics.

Dear Mr. Abagond, who at the end will win this manslaughtering race? It is really so important? Probably all the religions coming from middle east (judaism, christianity, islam) are violent at the core, so as all the ideologies (comunism, fascism, ecc ecc) You are young! Keep yourselves free from all of this! You don’t need to follow paranoid clerics of any religions or ideologist of any sort. Use your brain, your intelligence, build a future for your sons. FREEDOM that’s the Key. God is in your creativity and in your freedom to decide what to do of your life, something that all the clerics of all the religions Do Not Really Like.

Barchan, I go with Abagond. Please provide sources, I am also interested in this. If the sources are Arabic, Turkish and/or from majority Muslim countries studies, it’s much better, because there ARE people everywhere who try to tell it like it is, instead of “protecting” their culture or religion.

And it is the Muslims duty to take care of their own problems… I think we hear too few of them on the current fundamentalism these days. I know they exist as individuals, because I have talked about this with them, but it would be good to have scholarly work sources on all this.

Enrico, you are right. BUT, the problem is that there are many people who *use* God (or the concept of) to act malignantly against others. We can’t but act to oppose them. And it doesn’t work with only love and flowers and nice words. I wish it would.

OK , I get what you are saying now, Abagond, by all means lets ridicule the Fox News followers mentality and prejudice against Islam

Down in Brazil, I dont get to hear the Fox News din as much as you have to up there

After the Boston bombings, even before the capture, reading the news papers and comments on the internet, it was frightening the howl in the background that started coming in….an ominous background shreik , that came from all sides “left and right”, filled with acuasations, implications , outright wrong information ,starting from the wrong reports from the news organisations, to people not knowing about the conflict with Russia and Checenya rebels, people screaming about constitutional rights and the Miranda rights, when in the end they were read to the suspect , all kinds of false statements and lots of emotions for the wrong reason

People are at each others throats before any real facts have come in…

It seems like some division with the left and right, but, its far more deeper than that..Islamic fundamentalist bombers are actualy more deep right wing than left, but, people on the far left who love anyone who attacks the USA , sympathise with the suspect, calling him so innocent looking, like he was led along by his brother, but, he was a cold blooded murderer, and, people are trying to make it out like they operated alone with no influence from outside, when Russias authorities tried to tip off the CIA and FBI that the dead suspect was dangerous, I mean that doesnt sound like only in house planning, how could Russia know something really dangerous about this person? …and of course, the CIA and FBI let us down again…while we go throught the dog and pony show with the TSA at the airports

And the right wingers are so ready to jump to the conclusion that they are Arab bombers , and are ready to go balistics on immigration and dont even get that these bombers are the same as right wing Christian bombers like Eric Rudolph…they are religious concervative extremists, ready to kill…yet, they dont represent their religions at all, the Mosque had conflicts with the dead suspect and nearly kicked him out and they wouldnt bury him as a Muslim…they failed their religions miserably…Rudoph sure did also

Extremism in all its forms is what has to be scrutinised and cracked down on, not religion…anyone who decides to place a bomb in a public space to voice his opisition to government policies has crossed the line

This background howl and sceam from all sides, right against left and up against the middle is so depressing and draining, it makes me want to throw up, my emotions are totaly saturated and raked over the coals…I dont know if Im capable to have a rational discussion about it

you have to overlay the statistics with a ‘political map’ too democide doesn’t always reflect the nature of everyone who lives somewhere that their government is doing some dirt too ie by the other sociological category to create the statistics in the first place

Linda, music is one of the most important ways you can define a culture and how a people express themselves…and , I can guarentee you, the concepts I am talking about , didnt start in Egypt.

Cornlia, Ive been trying to explain, who ever put together two duple triple rhythms, looped them back on each other, with call responce syncopation, and cross rhythm , was dealing with advanced laws of mathamatics , exactly designed to have an affect by turning off the thinking brains and based on people holding their own parts , starts taking on a life of its own , and puts the practitioners in touch with intuition and using shuffle steps, and total body immersion with pelvic thrusts and head balance all co ordinated together and in time with the beats. Modern quantum physics and fractal definitions almost mimic these concepts in their descriptions as well as modern science is telling us that our intuition is actualy in charge of our bodies actions , and not our thinking brain, and these musical concepts Im talking about , are like a demonstration of our intuition in motion…if you ask me, that is genius and what civilisation is about and part ot the great steps ahead in human developement of modern man…they were some of the first steps…

So you really have to abandon conventional thinking for a second and ask yourself this, they found bone flutes in Europe , maybe 60 thousand years old…do you think humans invented bone flutes before drums? When the first modern humans evolved in Africa, what are they saying? 120 thousand years ago? You can state the fact if you know it, I also beleive the first migration of modern humans , over the Red Sea, that led to all the modern humans to populate all the areas outside of Africa happened about 90 thousand years ago? Correct that if you know the fact…but , no matter what, the 30 thousand years of modern man evolving in Africa before they crossed the Red Sea, is long enough for that modern man, who is equal to us in all levals, could be raised in modern society today, is enough time, that long ago , to actualy start to evolve the music concepts Im talking about, for sure the initial stages

and when I read the Igbo language was the basis for words in Egyption culture, and some semetic culturs, Indian languages and even English, I realised that the first migration out of Africa also took some of the early expresions of beats that had already been evolved in Igbo culture, which I always wondered about a similar type of groove that you can find from Africa to the Middle East, to India , to Indo China to Samoa…its not as complex as the evolved below the Sahara African beats became, but they are the traces, I beleive of some of the earliast drum and beat concepts of humans…I mean cmon, drums would have been invented before bone flutes..Africa is the home of the drum…even if arceologists will tell you the most ancient drums were found in Mesopatania, some clay pot drums…but common sence logic tells you, Africa is the home of the drum and , early man must have been in touch with the drum from a long long time ago…

Even if you cant fathom that long ago, you know that these concepts Im talking about, were in sub Sahara black Africa before they were anywhere else

Linda, you cant really talk about migrating patterns and where you think Africans have migrated without actualy checking out the traditional drum dance cultures of all over Africa, and see where the concepts Im talking about are concentrated and the most prolific…you have to go to the wiki link , I brought in, music and druming of sub sahara Africa and start checking out each tribe with youtubes of their traditional drums and dance…there are amazing similarities in so many tribes from below the Sahara, and, the ones in the North that are similar, more often as not come from two sources, the Berbers and Gnawas, who were the desert travelers and brought these concepts north …you are just saying words as though migrations were going back and forth, but the basic fundimentals of music Im talking about , without a doubt, didnt come from Egypt. The lower nile goes into other countries and I said the map you brought in 6000 years ago shows the Sahel was not desert and would have been a East to West flow of the concepts Im talking about

…and to continue, words are just words, look at the youtubes and they will tell you the story and then you can link the words you read about into the actual visualsation of those cultures

So, Cornila, it realy depends on how much you value that these ancient concepts that started below the Sahara by various cultures as diverse as the Igbo, and Pygmies and even the oldest known, the San, have elements of these concepts, but not as strong as Igbo. It depends on if you value that those concepts come all the way into today with as much force if not more than any pyramid ever built…I mean I sure perceive it in our cultures, the amont of force it drives our popular cultures , not to mention the deeper cultures that arnt popular but are innovating up to this very moment…I mean my gosh, if that isnt genius, the early advancements that modern man made, that really , are the first steps to all the knowledge advancements that humans have made, from the Egyptions, to the Indians, the Chinese, the native Americans, the Arabs, into Western advancements etc….it had to start somewhere and that is in sub Sahara black Africa…its clear as a bell to me…it didnt come from Egypt…

B.R. it would be good if you could be more concise in the way you tell things because it’s a lot to read and in the end I’m not sure if you’re saying this or that.

What I did above is ask you a simple question: do you have sources to support the fact that Egyptian civilization spread in Africa (what you said) instead of the opposite, African cultures contributing to the rise of an Egyptian civilization (what I said).

I was not asking whether you *believe* or *feel* something but rather if you have sources that I (and others, I guess) could be referred to. I thought (because I read that) that you were saying Ancient Egypt was the origin, but…

I *think* you are now saying the same as me (that is that the various African cultures contributed to the rise of a great civilization) but I’m not sure because it seems you are trying to convince me of that … ? When this is actually what I said above …

“” My aim is not to “bash Christians” but to put the shoe on the other foot so “Christians” can see what it feels like and understand how unfair it is. How maddening “facts” can be”” Your point that I have missed in that case sorry. But I never said that you “bash Christians” and I didnt focus on that part because im not that confident in my knowledge in that. Anyhow here is a list in english of Jihads against other peoples. http://www.historyofjihad.com/sitemap.html. I know I mentioned India specifically http://www.historyofjihad.org/india.htmlhttp://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NjqSYP36_AY&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DNjqSYP36_AY%26feature%3Dplayer_embedded This video that I have posted here before is very educational about the Arab slavery and the ongoing denialism that is present in todays arab countries. Also the way the old slave records in arab countries are actively kept from nowadays Black African scholars is really frustrating! He also touches the history revisionism that is rampant through the arab world today about slavery. Different figures exist and about the amount of victims. Since it pretty much has been ongoing for a millenia I would say it is in the same numbers as as the Trans-atlantic one, 20 millions, when you add Ottoman records and adds the whites as well. One diffrence is the more well hidden records now that the North Africans and arab world wants to trade and build relations with Black African nations……. And btw you mention the Reconquista isnt that an reaction towards the moorish (North african muslim) invasion? How can you put it as an exclusively christian war?

Its not too surprising that Christians tend to look at outsiders as bad; after all thats what their religion is based on…..if you aren’t christian you go to hell, its the one unforgiveable sin in the christian religion….to be different.

To be other than them, anything else can be forgiven, murder, rape, theft, torture etc….but being the other is damnable and can only be purged with fire.

So really; the fact that Christians might be prone to racism, sexism, xenophobia etc….isn’t surprising, it starts in one area of thought with them and spreads to others.

That and I suppose the forgiveness angle, no matter what they do they can always seek forgiveness so they don’t have to worry about sinning and when they do they can just turn it on their victims and say they are bad people because they won’t forgive them for what they did.

I guess a good addition to this post would be to compare the violence rates of societies before and after they converted to Christianity/Islam.

And personally I do call it Christian Violence; because any act by a christian represents their culture and religion. And yes; Christians are among the most violent people in the world. There’s some irony there.

That being said; as an athiest we have had plenty of violent mass murders ourselves.

not too surprising that Christians tend to look at outsiders as bad; after all thats what their religion is based on…..if you aren’t christian you go to hell, its the one unforgiveable sin in the christian religion….to be different.

That is, if you don’t actually follow what is is deemed to be Jesus’s word. “Love thy like thyself”. and all the rest.

I was born and baptized the same day in the Catholic church (I wish I had had a say on that) and I never adhered to the Church and rituals. However, I had priests for catechism who were left-wing and very active socially and politically, so I saw the side of Christianity that “should” be. I definitely left the “Church” on the day of a wonderful sermon on “welcoming the stranger” when, after leaving the church (where Muslim kids and their Imam were welcome to do the Coranic school every Wednesday afternoon and Friday while we were doing catéchism), some of the people who were at mass with me started insulting (without being too loud so they wouldn’t get retaliation, the cowards) “Arabs” who were crossing the street in front of the church. To me that was IT.

I still think the “word” is cool and guiding, all the rest is selfish and abusive BS and has nothing to do with “Christ”.

I’m watching/listening to it while tidying stuff, as I always do, keeping my mind busy learning… So far (10 min) I know the stuff he’s talking about, and I’m sure I’ll learn new stuff after that introduction.

This is the type of docs I use elements of in class, to teach my students, whenever the occasion pops up.

In the last years however, and that had NEVER happened before, whenever I started a video featuring an African(-American), I had racist “bursts” from some students, like that girl who shouted “oh the baboon” when my Texan and African-American penpal appeared to introduces herself and her hobbies in a video interview I had made of her… I said: “what did you just say ?” Appalling, but the girl was rebuffed by her classmates right away so it was a positive thing in the end.

Dr Garvey Jr’s vision of the Arabs (and the Chinese/Mongols too) as “nothing” because nomadic and therefore having “nothing” in the place of a civilization is little reductive, isn’t it ? I mean, if they had had “nothing”, they wouldn’t have been able to conquer what they conquered, you need political unity for that… That they were invaders and colonizers in the same manner as the Christians, yes, but “nothing” ??

That would equate to agreeing with the secular racism (and man, that one existed before “racism” as a science was invented) against the Tzigane/Gipsies/Rom, that nomadic people who every other European person is taught to be mistrustful of. Why ? Well, apparently mostly because they are nomadic… And “dirty”. And “thieves”. And “murderers”…

Is his explanation of the reason why people were first sold as slaves to the Arabs what prompts so many today to say that “Africans” sold their own ?” (33′) If yes, that’s sad and sounds like what happened much later in Haiti, where France forced the Haitians to pay for their freedom.

More problematic generalizations (I already noted that in my previous comment) that I find quite appalling (and so reminiscent of some the talk by American soldiers going to Iraq or usual racists), or at least extremely regrettable…

“desert rats who would come out of their sand holes”
“Coming like termites”…

“An Arab, an Englishman, a white American, a Frenchman, A German, they’re all the same breed… yeah, thieving, slave-trading people”…

He does know that the Zulu were invaders too, right ? Or does their cruelty become the glory of the African, somehow ?

Hmm, so all Africans/Blacks are good, law-abiding, honest people ? That’s kinda dangerous talk isn’t it ? To imagine that your “breed” is all good as opposed another “breed” that’s all bad… African-Americans must be sometimes surprised and even shocked when having to deal with some Africans I know… if that’s what they’re told. This sounds like Africa is a fairy-tale land…

New-Guinea ? That’s “blacks” in the racial classification, in the eyes of the “white man”, but are the dark-skinned people of the Pacific ocean Africans ? In that case we are ALL Africans, right now, all over the planet… since we all are their descendants.

Doesn’t this approach of things bring more confusion when it is supposed to clear things up ?

It is surprising that he would teach African-American Muslims about historical realities, but then why insert things that have nothing to do with it and which also are false and/or anachronic ?

Jews… hell it’s so easy it’s laughable. “Who had the money?” Yep, he could also explain WHY ? Why they were the ones asked to put their hands in it so that the others could clear their souls and go to heaven ? This reduction of historical facts to “races” is so easy… Like, there were no poor Jews in Europe, right ?

Well, I guess I did learn a few historical details in this conference, but the conceptualization is nothing new.

About the Sudan. Here is a very important scholar on this topic:http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n05/mahmood-mamdani/the-politics-of-naming-genocide-civil-war-insurgency
this is an article our Erythrean Race Theory teacher gave us to read and I discovered someone who understands and explains a lot from an African perspective.
“It is the descendents of Kemet who are being murdered there, by the Arabs.” It is not that simple, as “race” would make us believe. Many of those so-called “Arabs” would be classified as “blacks” in the US and many of the ones qualified as “Kemet” by him are in fact Muslims. The vision of things from an American point of view is very often simplistic, unfortunately. Add to that the fact that “Christians” defend the Christians of South Sudan and that could have led to total disaster…

I wonder, is there an African thinker somewhere (I still have a few to read but I know some Africans who are thinking about it) who has reflected on the possibility that the acceptance of the European concept of race (which Garvey Jr calls forth quite heavily) is what is killing the bird in the egg ?

I know some (many) here don’t agree with my/that take, so there is no need to jump all over me. We know we don’t agree. I’m trying to think of what could be a way to liberate us all of that ideology.

At the same time, I do understand that resorting to the “white man’s” counter-concept of “black man” (may ?) seems useful as a unifying concept. But it is still the white man’s thing and happens in the confrontation with him. What about a “Native” concept ? There are people trying to come up with one. Isn’t the perpetuation of “blackness” versus “whiteness” what is preventing something new, based on African philosophy, religions, concepts, from sprouting and taking roots ? What is keeping the “white man” in the game, his game and his rules ?

I’m just asking. I’m not saying this would be a solution. I just don’t think going by the “white man’s” rule is the solution. At all.

He says it himself (about racial/color classifications) : “we’ve got some bad thoughts. That’s why we’re not ruling the world now. You know we’ve got to get rid of all those thoughts. Clean up our minds.”

(Also, doesn’t he forget that those classifications (in Jamaica, Haiti) were not the deed of the enslaved Africans (I never say African slaves) but those of the colonizer/enslaver ?)

What does it mean if not that (abandoning the reference to race/color) ?

Well at the same time he is talking about “race destruction” on the African continent… So does he mean the only solution is “race purity” ? (Which he seems to imply by saying “we need to get them all out” when talking about SA…)

That’s where the loop of racial conception of the world is closing on what I think is a trap. “Each” on “his” continent -as if earth had set it so, a red, a yellow, a white and a black continent, really ? Each deport the “wrong”-color people to achieve the right tone ? Where will that solution leads us if not to global genocide ?

We really need to stop thinking in terms of race, and the one who should start is the “white man”, because “he” is the one who started it. (And I’m not just saying it, I’m doing it, and many people don’t like it, for various reasons, starting with the racists who call me a traitor or -the last one I got- “une métisseuse”)

At the same time, I’m not blaming African scholars for following that path, because they have had enough, so it’s understandable. As an easy solution. But nothing is ever simple and easy in the human world.

The problem is; on the average, a christians neighbors are other christians.

At absolute best; it translates into the “exception” mode of thinking for racists, classists, xenophobes etc….this guy who lives next to me is alright but the rest still fit my way of thinking.

And the translation of the innate mode of thought in Christianity of “different is bad” to everyother kind of different is pretty much inevitable.

Can’t teach Christianity and forgiveness without teaching that as well.

Ultimately; whether you love them or not its going to create a bias in you against people who are different or cultures not your own. Which already exist anyways, this just gives spiritual and divine justification/reinforcement to that thought process and believe style.

And of course I maybe giving too much credit towards people actually knowing or taking in the religion/philosphy of their area.

Especially since there was a study that came out where it turned out that anybody who went to a church of any kind (christian, muslim etc….) were all more likely to be racist, regardless of whether or not their church or religion taught against that kind of thinking.

I believe that racism has a religious structure in itself, which I hope I can explore and/or read about. I started reading and studying about race/racism a year ago, after observing, thinking, acting and reacting by myself, so I imagine someone has already written about that, so I’m not surprised.

Well, if we look at what the holy books say in their texts I would say that they are about as violent both. There is enough blood to go around in the bible and koran is also full of violence. It even tells you to beat your wife into submission. Yes, it is there. I’ve read that book too, so no need to explain it. And yes, I am not a christian nor muslim, nor I am an atheist either. I have my own convictions based on my personal experiences and thinking.

Also I believe if you compare Christians in the US towards other religions inregards to crime, even in instances where population and class levels are comparable they still have higher tendencies towards criminality.

Bulanik, I definitely concur on what you said above. Nations / States / Bureaucracies / Capitalism as it organizes itself as supposedly outside and independent of these while being totally dependent when it comes to “solving crises”, are extremely violent psychologically if not physically. The only thing that can contain them if when the people truly exerts its right by not being reluctant to sacrifice for the next generations. Which is what democracy is: a never ending struggle.

I recently read Weber as part of a sociology class and I found his description of bureaucracy quite interesting, and scary too !

There have been more modern/recent studies of that, but I haven’t had time to get into that. Marx’s Capital also brings a lot of insight into how the Nation state functions, totally in relation to the “needs” and benefit of the class that manages to hijack power, when the People isn’t united and active.

The new ruling class these days being the oligarchy that is building its fortunes on the financial markets, the extreme form of capitalism, making it harder for the People to know who to target, because they are not the “official” rulers.

And THAT’s extremely violent, when you can’t even see who’s hurting you…

The other day, a French “socialist” (brackets for “not really anymore”) politician and minister said this in a sentence: “democracy is sacred”…

This was a huge lapsus as he meant “the Republic is sacred”… Democracy is the People’s thing, not the Institutions’… Very very revealing of their mindset, that accepts no change and certainly no change from the people, which they imagine they can keep framed and trapped in the “sacredness” of slow-moving and seemingly eternal rituals.

someone explains that the advent of Pope Francis is, for the neo-nazi, white-thinking, defendors of a “Christian white Occident”, this is a sign that their attempts at suppressing all obstacles (understand people) on the way to that “renaissance” of the Catholics were right.

This Pope has NEVER defended anyone, even Jesuit priests, against the brutal dictatorship in Argentina…

In this program, someone else quotes a Brazilian priest (because there are real good priests who are humble). He said: “as long as I was saying I wanted to help the poor, I was called a saint, when I started asking about the origin of poverty, I was called a communist”.

The commentors is explaining how the Theory of Liberation priests were persecuted because they designated capitalism as the main problem…

“white america”? what about latino and african american America? They are also Christian and with a much higher murder rate than whites (mostly due to gangs, poverty, but not to religion).

I don’t dismiss the title of the article but it seems not too refined in the thought process.

Also you talk about “Christian wars” and mention Vietnam, Korea, Russian Civil War, Indochina war… some of those were due the the Cold War (Communism against Liberalism, or Civil wars and Independence war). Those are not Christian wars at all, it has nothing to do.

““white america”? what about latino and african american America? They are also Christian and with a much higher murder rate than whites (mostly due to gangs, poverty, but not to religion).”

If I had done it the other way – compare America as a whole to the Middle East – I would instantly get comments that America is more violent than the Middle East because, duh, it has blacks, that outside of violent ghettos America is more peaceful. Well, not so.

“Also you talk about “Christian wars” and mention Vietnam, Korea, Russian Civil War, Indochina war… some of those were due the the Cold War (Communism against Liberalism, or Civil wars and Independence war). Those are not Christian wars at all, it has nothing to do.”

Well, that is the point, isn’t it? That talking about “Islamic” violence makes about as much sense as talking about “Christian” violence. Sure, Muslims use religion to excuse violence, but so do Christians – as in their talk of “godless communists”. But even if America were Buddhist or Scientologist it would have still opposed the Soviet Union for simple geopolitical reasons.

Talking about “Islamic” violence is just like talking about “black” crime: labels do not prove causation. They just prove bigotry.

Permission to be truthful? Unhappiness religions has been used as an excuse to kill. Those religions aren’t good or bad – this depends so much how they’re used.
Religious fanatics born in poor countries, amidst either Illirerate people or desinformed.
Many mulism countries are poor and the local religion’s leaders can do as they wish to put things from the Koran out of the context to reach their own objectives.
Many christianity leaders are doing the same.
Except from an particulary group(Jeovah Witnesses) the others incite hate and murder.
Now accuse religions is wrong, you can acuse fanatic people doing this.

It is impossible to have been raised in the Middle East and not hate America. It is instilled and inherent hatred from birth on, passed on from generation to generation, nothing but HATE. Muslims/Islams HATE certain groups of people, specifically Christians, and they clearly teach death to Americans. Any Muslim/Islam person who denies that is lying. Mentalities like that are radical, they are inherently mentally ill from the abuse, suppression, and violence that is part of every Muslim child’s upbringing, and they are dangerous for the world. They are currently killing machines, and they kill for power and position, whereas their victims, Americans and Christians, kill in self defense. It is night and day who is the better people. Muslim and Islam is full of mental illness. FULL.

I AM A MUSLIM WOMAN AND NO ONE OPRESSES ME AND I’M PERFECTLY HAPPY WITH THE VAIL it is better than walking around and people staring at my figure and features I mean I don’t think freedom mean to satisfy you western men’s sexual desires and reach that bullshit standard of beauty I mean you have no right to put such standard. But Islam doesn’t and I’m happy I study and one day I’ll become a scientist and fucking blow you minds up

America isn’t a “White” country and infact 50% of the murder in america is committed by blacks. Your taking a diverse country and comparing it to a homogenous country then disingenuously insinuating that whites commit the majority of the crime in america(they don’t) and then your disingenuously assuming that whites are the majority in America(they are not)

Not sure what you are talking about. In the post I compared the murder rate of WHITE America to Middle Eastern countries. White America has a higher murder rate than almost the whole Middle East – only Palestine and Yemen are worse.

What about wars initiated directly as a result of religion? Christians don’t even come close to Islamic violence. Unfortunately, while there are Christians all over the Middle East and world in general who are being persecuted and slaughtered by Muslims for their faith, instead of making people more aware of these slayings, you post specious statistics to promulgate the “violence” of Christianity. Please focus more on the six month old babies who are being beheaded by Muslims for being born into Christian families, thank you.

How is either example misleading? We know that both Hitler and the 9/11 terrorists actions were informed, at least in strong part, by their religious beliefs.

“Some blame technology, yet the Muslim world has all the weapons the West had to kill over 100 million people.”

The muslim world did not have anything close to the firepower that the West possessed during the most lethal confrontations in history (and still does not).

The West has been at a great technological advantage for much of the history that you’ve outlined when it really matters: when population density has been high enough to inflict massive casualties in short order with very powerful weapons. What reason do we have to believe it would be any different had history favored muslim technological supremacy?

The current hate for, repression of and violence against women in non christian countries far exceeds current “Christian” violence.
If ww1, 2, Vietnam and so forth are called Christian wars then what was the gulf war called? Just bc Christians were involved doesnt give anyone the right to call it a Christian war.

What an ignorant, completely misinformed “blog”. You are comparing a people (caucasians) with a history of modernization and exploration with those (non-white) who were either stuck in a primitave way of life or were isolationists. As far a Christianity goes, Nearly each war that you named that was Christian had nothing to do with Christianity the wars themselves were not fought because of Christianity.

Nearly each war that you named that was Christian had nothing to do with Christianity the wars themselves were not fought because of Christianity.

that was the whole point of the blog post. Your comment actually validated the blog post’s main point.

Calling wars fought not because of Islam, but with heavy involvement of Muslims a “muslim” war is just as disingenuous as calling a war fought not because of Christianity, but involving a large number of Christians a “Christian” war.

But since if there are some people who think Muslims are violent because they are fighting a war, it might make as much sense to call Christians violent because they fight wars (regardless of whether it has anything to do with Christianity per se). Or even if it was over “universal values” held by the West, they might have some origin in Christianity teaching.

this thread is funny…all the long list and some frustrating irrelevant comments on why someone left the church or not make me ask why all these propaganda? who cares if you left the church or not? it is your life and you will face your God someday so save us of the boring talk until then.

back to the list here, i will like the author of this article to start the profiling from muhammad the founder of islam and the founder of Christianity…and lol we will see how this list fares… or we should ask why do we still have 99% of muslims kill until today for some gods AS THEY SHOUT ALLAHU AKBAR while 1 % of them moderates are MUTE?

i think labelling wars fought by kings/military leadership in the west as christian wars who never said ‘IN JESUS NAME I KILL U’ like our muslim terrorists do from the 7th century until today is HIGHLY MISLEADING. smiling :)

why iran can be threat for all coutries , while Iran did not start any war In the last 100 years?
israel love only peace!!
israel has occupied Palestinian territories.israel army has chemical and nuclear wepoans and The leaders of Israel are crazy and War criminal.

Saudi Arabia[vahhabi kingdom] and qatar and u.a.e and other vahhabi’s governments supporting al-qaeda .
and usa government[big evil] support Saudi Arabia[vahhabi kingdom] and qatar and u.a.e .
all vahhabi’s groups and al-qaeda are enemies of real islam.their leader is muhammad ben abdul vahhab [not hummand that is messenger].
usa can stop Saudi and qatar in al-qaeda supporting [money-weapon support] .

Christianity had nothing at all to do with WWI or WWII. Your article is vague and misleading. At best it’s “Speculation” since there are no really accurate figures for any of the other wars mentioned, those are only estimates. And, if you want to know how many people Jihadists have killed:

Hmmm. serious site this is!!! The first war of the muslims was Saturday, 13 March 624…. you guys “forgot almost 500 years of muslim tyranny, and how did you dot that i ask?!? because you have your head stuck soooo far up your asre that you cant see the truth…. peace our and gor bless the atheists!!!

[…] died in Christian wars: 113.8 million compared to the 16.4 million who died in Muslim wars." Are Christians more violent than Muslims? | Abagond __________________ The Oracle: We're all here to do what we're all here to do. I'm interested […]

When a person commits a crime if they are christian people wouldn’t blame chrisitanity but if that person is muslim then they called him islamic terrorist
Calling, the 9/11 terrorists “Islamic” is like calling Hitler “Christian”: its misleading. It is Islamophobia, not a serious attempt to understand the world as it is.

The interesting thing to me isn’t that Hitler and the Nazi’s were christian.

But that by and large that seems to be something almost totally unaware of by a large portion of the christian community.

The very idea that Hitler and Nazi’s could be Christians is just mind blowing. Even to none Christians like myself……the idea of Hitler being so evil just pretty and dedicated to his cause pretty much seemed to over-ride even the thought he could have been christian.

But I guess that just comes down to the ol’ “everything good is god, everything bad is man”…..so if a society, people or individual do something bad that’s “man” but if they do something good that’s the result of the Church and God.

The interesting thing to me isn’t that Hitler and the Nazi’s were christian.

But that by and large that seems to be something almost totally unaware of by a large portion of the christian community.

The very idea that Hitler and Nazi’s could be Christians is just mind blowing. Even to none Christians like myself……the idea of Hitler being so evil just pretty and dedicated to his cause pretty much seemed to over-ride even the thought he could have been christian.

Your mind is blown by that. That doesn’t surprise me, v-4.

Perhaps you believe Muslims are inherently more evil, but don’t know why.
Perhaps you believe theories that are critical of US foreign policy are merely anti-American or the product of “hate” and silly-silly conspiracy theories.

“””Perhaps you believe theories that are critical of US foreign policy are merely anti-American or the product of “hate” and silly-silly conspiracy theories.”

Lets get this straight, I am the main commenter on this blog who takes weak , half truths, misinformed , biased reports from links , and calls out those links as anti american

There is a good reason, living in a country that has groups of people who are Marxist and run this anti American crap up the wazoo, the lies, the half truths, the hypocracy, I can smell an anti American turd dropped a mile away

This kind of beefing about being called out for bringing in anti American links, is tired, its basicly a smoke signal to hide the absolute weak , hypocritical, biased half truths and lies being brought in …or a naiveness to just beleive anything that could look like a criticism of American policy with absolutly no referance to what else was happening at the same time from the opisition in any respective perioud in history the usa keeps getting nailed to the wall about…

this just makes me even more determned to point out the flaws and hypocracies in the weak links brought in

this blogs dissects American entrails on a daily basis, and lets absolutly do that, dissect white racism …but, when people with their agendas try to aply what is happening with white racism in America to American foreign policy, with no acknowledgement of the absolute horrors happening from the people we oposed , and no real perspective, then go suk on a lemon…if we cant tell the whole truth…things like America only makes war on poc, are blatent false statements,

if what is happening out here with American foreign policy is going to be butchered so much the real truth is totaly lost, I disrespect those hypocracies and lies and support Obama’s drone bombing campain…same with their help to Colombia to bomb the Farc

save that guilt tripping crap for some weak minded individual who isnt willing to do the real research

You sound aggressive.
Do you want to fight someone? Would you like to intimidate anyone?
Or would prefer to insult them until they shut up?
Are you hoping “your colleagues” will come out and beat my commentary into an online pulp for not praising your government’s policies and actions?
Is that what you want to see, BR?

How come, if there is any word of dissent, then out comes the TOILET and the bowel-openings … ?
And don’t forget to wave around the soiled toilet brush, too.. that’s how you have a discussion, I suppose. I can’t say I mind the governments of European countries being discussed. In fact, it’s a good thing. That’s why I, and others, mentioned that Hitler was a Christian. Very, very telling.

***

I don’t agree with V4 on subjects, but respect V4’s straightforwardness.
He didn’t say he knew something afterward that he didn’t know about when it was first mentioned.

V4’s mind was blown because he (she?) can’t get round the fact the Nazis and Hitler were Christian. I doubt if that is unusual because most people that I’ve known didn’t associate Christianity with Nazism either.
Do YOU have a theory on why that came to be?
It’s not taught. It’s not shown. It’s not emphasized. It’s not discussed.
Know why?

You’re always telling people they are weak-minded if they don’t agree with you, that you are there to point out flaws and are so happy you have a hard-care non-University education because you research things for yourself and we should all follow you because you are on the frontline of truth.

Thus your insight into why so many people (outside of Germany, Austria, etc.) don’t know about the Christianity of Hitler would be good to know.

The Roman Catholic house of Christianity is particularly bloody. Not that abuses do not also fall outside of their sect and tradition. But the RCs either began or were participants in almost every single war in Abagond’s list above.

Those Westboro Church clowns profess Christianity. They certainly are the polar opposite of Christianity. They are a perfect exampe of fundamaentalist extremist. They like Nazis, the KKK, are icons of hatred and bigotry. But profess to be Christians. (Rolls Eyes).

Christianity has always been the “motivator” behind a lot of history’s darkest events, including the oppression of Africans and African Americans and the slaughter of Native Americans. One could say that God in the mindset of the white man was the devil himself.

Bulanik, all I can tell you about that subject of Hitler is , I never doubted he was Christian , or existing side by side if he wasnt practicing himself , and I dont know how people wouldnt, and I never doubted fundamentalist Christianity is as violent as fundimentalist Islam , and my dislike for both as well as fundimental Judism is a strong emotion in me

You can seperate my impaitence with weak links brought in about what is wrong with America foreign policy from the everyday dissection of what is wrong with America on this blog, especialy racist America, and , Bulanik, certainly you know you have made many many comments about what is wrong with America that I have never disagreed with , and , in fact are good comments…especialy in reguards to white racist America

As I have implied, I live in a country that has groups of politicly motivated people , who lead with Marxism, and have created a powerful brainwashing echo , about how evil America is and how the cia has infiltrated everything and how America is going to invade the Amazon , and their absolute red washing of their experiances in the cold war filled with hypocracies, half truths and outright lies….this is something that comes across almost daily in one form or another.

While daily interactions with Brazilians is not frought with these confrontations , there have been disgustingly humiliating experiances exactly because Im American, but , its the din of various docus made by the Marxists themselves, the occaisional opinion peace in a newspaper , or slant by a tv jornalist, watching the horribly slanted view my son got going through the educational system, he got worse than I did , a number if microaggresions and exclusions , all add up to hearing most all of the cold war accuasations and lies, and the hyper ability to see through the anti American bs…as well as see through the Fox news America is always right and good versions…I dont deny America is dirty, but , I will stand up to fairy tales , and have discovered all sides were dirty

I am not coming in here oposing any criticism against America, I have supported criticisms of America and criticised America in here , too…my views dont go with the white viewers arguing against Abagonds points about racism in America….where I have argued about is anti interracial relationship drek , with equal impaitence as I argue against weak links that are anti American foreign policy…and I have gotten into heated disagreements about booty dancing and sex

According to Abagond , a third of the commentors are not American, and , I just dont get there is some general feeling that they arnt qualified to criticise America…this is not a regular argument on here, that criticisms of America are anti American , and , I , have tried to make it clear Im ridiculing links I see brought in that are anti American….and, I am the main person that makes the point that some links about American foreign policy are anti American and ridiculous , and have no problem stepping up to claim that when someone is implying those sentiments exist on here , to defend my position

But, as a general rule , American faults are disscussed here daily with no anti American accuasations….and the many comments you have made about things that are wrong with America, are welcome, but , I have no problem pointing out which links I think are anti American…certainly , Assange is an assumed anti American

By the way , I might add, I never originaly came to this blog to get intonAmerican foreign policy debates , it was to disscuss white racism..I have other blogs that I can vent full force and say what id really like to say with no restrictions on curse words, that are much more fullfilling for me about discussion on American foreign policy

And , my son has way more guts than I do, standing up in class at 12 or 13 , in front of everyone , arguing with some teachers bogus take on America…

Anything I say on here is just carry over from some heated debates Im having on other blogs about these issues…it gives me no pleasure to get entangled over here in these debates, especialy when I can really express myself to the fullest gutural range about it , elsewhere…and I end up at odds with people over here I generaly agree with

I never noticed that you criticize your nation or government.
And if you have never noticed that a few American commenters have regularly, in the past — TRIED to shut down or undermine, non-Americans who don’t praise the US, then we might not be reading the same blog.
There are subtle ways that particular nasty defensiveness is shown, and there are overt and unpleasant ways that’s shown. You haven’t noticed. And you may not have had the off-line conversations with the non-Americans who used to visit this blog and no longer do.

Is Abagond’s blog, and whole point, to criticise his nation and nationality? Is that what the threads are about? Really?

You have me amazed.
Abagond writes about a HUGE array of topics. His slant and tone isn’t “being critical”, only and solely.
Yet, to YOU, it’s all about “daily” discussion of American faults. What rubbish.
The US and its myriad aspects, histories are under discussion. It is also a Superpower. This is extremely important. Not to be taken lightly, not to be skipped over.
What do you expect?
I am not surprised then, that you see animosity where there is noneou doing a service here by being on the defensive about issues that actually require reflection and thought more than loud aggression and finger pointing to “other sides”. Why is it that I, or someone else, has to tell you to be rational, or fair minded before you are prepared to be so?

While daily interactions with Brazilians is not frought with these confrontations , there have been disgustingly humiliating experiances exactly because Im American,
..a number if microaggresions and exclusions ,

Horrible. I see what you mean..

Anything I say on here is just carry over from some heated debates Im having on other blogs about these issues…it gives me no pleasure to get entangled over here in these debates, especialy when I can really express myself to the fullest gutural range about it , elsewhere…and I end up at odds with people over here I generaly agree with

So the aggression you show here, to various commenters, is a carry over from elsewhere. I think that’s generally true of off-line/on-line life anyway, but you’ve been doing this thing for a number of years now — where’s the control?
Where’s the discretion?

Do you take the aggression you show here and throw on the people in your real life? I really doubt it.
Is anyone the same, in every situation, in every part of life, in life?
I doubt it. That doesn’t work in life off-line, so is it working here, too?

Thinking about it, sometimes I have to interact with people that treat me like a sub-human for various reasons, or are so jealous, and angered by something about my X, my Y and my Z — they practically spit saliva in my face when they have to speak to me, etc., etc., etc.. I don’t want to go into the ghastly details. Still, when I have to speak with another individual, it’s not necessarily so. It’s a different conversation. There’s a separation. Must be.

If something gives you no pleasure — then why do you do it?
Why tell me about “turds” and stuff when we have discussion? Is it necessary?
Or are you just saying that it gives you no pleasure, when it in fact, does?
If you can really let loose on the bowel-talk somewhere else and flush it out of your system there, why not keep it there? That’s just a question of being “flexible”. Why not be good to yourself, instead…

And , my son has way more guts than I do, standing up in class at 12 or 13 , in front of everyone , arguing with some teachers bogus take on America…

Kudos, to him. It DOES take guts to take on teachers like that.

Your son was probably around other children with guts who had to struggle and stand up for themselves in ways he didn’t have to. No doubt he realises that? I emigrated to Europe, alone, when I far younger than 12 or 13, and dealt with not only teachers putting down my nationality, accent, race and colour, but other children and adults, too. It went on for years and years.
But I was hardly the only one.
I can think of many children in the same boat (and worse, far worse).
Some of them didn’t survive it, and were defeated too young, even the ones that fought and screamed.

But, some of them were able to survive and stick up for themselves without being aggressive and potty-mouthed.

A lot of children, and adults, have courage and guts, BR, and some of them are quiet — not weak — just quiet. There’s a difference.
As for me, being a PWS (person who stammers), and people like me, there was also extra work involved in the mere trying.
But there’s nothing “special” or “heroic” in that.Everyone has something.
*

You agree with my comments about white racist America?
I didn’t know that. When I consider what you say to me, and how you say it, it takes me aback.

The racism of the US (notice I rarely call it “America”?) is not something I’d claim to know about. You’re mistaken if only think I’m talking about the US.
I’m not. I am talking from a perspective outside of Europe — if I don’t specifically mention the US. I didn’t get what I know from books, or things written by American nationals.

(And nor do I think what I say is particularly “good” as commentary.
I am self-critical and shy away from writing guest posts for this reason.
There are things going in my life, and this blog helps me with them in its own way.)

Bulanik, aggresion ? How about defensiveness…to assume Im the resident blog prick is absurd…the kind of insults , false accuasations , put downs and outright lies directed at me on this blog deserve everything I learned about being defensive…really interesting hearing this line of thinking from you , reffering to since years back when you tried to orchestrate on this blog that I was a stalker …or , after hearing some of the most absurd things on this blog about anti interracial couples , and bi racial children…well you are gosh darn real Im on the defensive…ive seen more crap about that on here than real life…

I wont even go into differances in sex and booty dance…and the insults that flew my way…

But , how can you miss that discussing American white racism on here and its a daily experiance ,is dissecting America, ?and I have spoken out against white racism quite blatently , and , have no problem dissecting it ….

So , just because some other white Americans opose those opinions , doesnt mean they are arguing foreigners cant make those points….that is not a regular defence that comes up on here…only sometimes it will come up

But I quite frankly will tell any one foreign or American , that railroading American foreign policy into some big boogey man, which has absolutly been done on here , and by you , is not the same as addressing white racism in America….the world is way too dirty to make America the evil one sided player who is at fault , and the foreign policy discusions do that au nausea…with very little referance to the whole story , the whole circumstances , who all the players are and all the complexities involved. …..its one sided , half truths and lies and distortions …ridiculous distortions

And some comments are gross and and obscene ,and come from the toilet and ought to be flushed right down the toilet along with anti interacial crap…and it needs to be called out for exactly what it is …bs….diarréia of the mouth…word vomit…a turd

These gross comments dont deserve politeness , I dont bring in any anger from other blogs, Im just prepared to stand up to the bs, exactly from seeing it in steroid form in real life and blogs….and its more intence and guttoral, and I prefer that honesty than here where your comments are moderaded and eliminated if epiphets that are actualy aprpriate in some of these cases are used

.most Americans arnt prepared to argue against these lies, they are either with an agenda like Chomsky , or have read him and buy him hook line and sinker ,or Fox news ignorant chumps who dont know their countries real history , or caught like deer in the headlights and dont know how to stand up to the half truths or lies

Any discusion that involves American cold war policy that doesnt include the multi millions eliminated by Marxist flawed ideology , which is why those fighting against it fought so dirty , is a half truth or lie with an agenda or naive, a d American cold war policy is brought up here regularly

By the way , when I lived in new york 78-86, you bet everyday was dealing with rudeness , so this is reality I have come to know , and actualy respect the honesty

And railroading capitalism , like its the worst thing on the planet without going into differances , like hyper predatory capitalism or capitalism with a concience and social programs , and not mention the blatent disgusting aspects f Marxism and what it has done to people , or compared to life under Sharia law ,or just the facts that America offers upward mobility to millions of people of all ethnic backgrounds , compared to where they came from , or compared to lives that would be similar in other countries like being black in America compared to Brazil , and how there is more upward mobility in Ametica, is just not looking at the whole truth…..

Yeah , lets pile on white racism , but dont play that with America in a dirty world, at least Im not piling on….I know too much dirt out here , and too many lies about the USA…and I wont let it pass…same with anti interracial crud…it just get passed me

Crime in the US, like many ills of American society, is racialized as a Black thing. Many think that outside of some violent ghettos, the US is a peaceful, law-abiding country, birds chirping, apple pies baking. Not so! The overall murder rate would have made the US look worse, but it would have been quickly blamed on Blacks and not taken seriously.

in nigeria christians are horribly the most violent but covered by christian dominated press. eg a christian general led the brutal killing of more twenty muslims in zangon kataf kaduna .when he was tried and convicted the christians worlwide insisted that he must be released. more brutal killing of muslims was then carried out in plateau where more than fifty thousand muslims were killed and no single christian was tried. president even glorified the governor of plateau state jona jang who led the killings by supporting him as chairman governor’s forum even though he was not elected. the christian association of liars and deceivers sponsoring the misguided boko haram rascals now carrying out more brutal killing of muslims to reduce muslim population in nigeria for wicked and the most corrupt gej to be reelected . they sponsored maitatsine from vatican before. thus it is stupidity to tell us that christianity teachs peace and love.

Religion, like capitalism, is divisive. Claims that either represents a “good” system just don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Religion is competitive. Of necessity, a member of any given proselytising religion will point to competing religions being “worse”.

Earlier in this thread, an anonymous Muslim contributor said:

[…] We are all brothers in humanity—family—and the worst potential in our brother human being is also the worst potential in us—-and the best potential in our brother human being is also the best potential in us […]

Well said.

Why the hell do we develop these systems of inequality and control?

Kropotkin – the godfather of Anarchist communism – insisted that the overwhelming tendency in both animals and humans was cooperation and mutual aid. Even under oppressive religious and economic/political regimes there is an underground of resistance that values people above wealth and/or dogma.

To me, claims that any religion is comparatively better or worse is kind of analogous to oncologists getting competitive about whose specialist disease is most destructive.

Nigerian war was not a religion war and also cause by Christian from the South part of the country where dominated by Christians. 1967 civilian war of Nigeria cause by Igbo tribes which majority of Igbo are Christians and they aim was to divided Nigerian and get they own country name Biafra. in that war both Muslims and Christians fight against this idea of they own of divide the country.

Lets see there are muslims living in America so i shall count America as a muslim nation and include every one that the American government kills to Islam. This is about the same as counting everything that America does to Christianity DUMB STATEMENTS you make!

YOUR posts are truly idiotic OF course you did NOT include ISLAM in the WW liar! I know you did NOT forgot that the ISLAMIC joined with HITLER in the war and when YOU BOTH LOST the great nation of ISRAEL was REBORN! Muslims are such liars!

I laughed pretty hard when I read this piece of excrement. I have never witnessed so much misinformation in my life. It seems the author purposely omitted certain information and took other matters out of context in order to paint some false portrayal of Christianity and lend credibility to the “religion of peace.” There is no sound argument against the FACT that Islam is inherently violent. Set aside all your preconceived notions and preconditioned responses, and examine the behavior and teachings of Mohammed himself. Now, do the same for Jesus. There is no comparison, regardless of your personal religious beliefs. Anyone who states otherwise is either in denial, or too unintelligent to grasp reality. Even atheists will agree Jesus taught peace while Mohammed was incredibly militaristic.
Just because an individual claims to be a Christian prior to carrying out some horrible act does not mean he actually follows the religion. On the other hand, numerous examples exists regarding Mohammed committing atrocities and condoning such behavior in the name of Allah.
There is no argument here, unless you want to employ fallacious logic.

I guess until a religious country drops a Nuclear B*mb. wait one did! It killed a lot of people men, women, children, babies and poison a lot of people (I think we even got some Godzilla movies out of it). Not to mention defects that are happening in another country for spraying some type of let me see called Agent Orange or something during its military campaign there. Still Ghandi did see he liked Christ teachings but pretty much hated the people who thought they were following Christ ways.

I am a Christian but hey you’ve got to know head count wise we win. We aren’t even talking bout when the old Popes were trying to hammer out their power and killed off those branches they saw as a threat. Maybe one of those times I sympathize with the French. Still both religions do have a lot red on their hands.

[…] totals up the death tolls from Christian wars versus Muslim wars, Christianity surpasses Islam by a wide margin. By the logic used by Islamophobes to validate their racist and xenophobic opinions, they would […]

Hitler was not any practicing Christian . He was insane .
In fact -he and his top aide ,Himmler , sought the occult and fortune tellers for war answers . They resented religion and competed with it .

Hitler was not reading the Bible at night . In fact , he felt threatened by religion and peddled the “winter solictice ” in Germany to complete with religious celebrations . He moved santa from saint ( in white ) to commercial ( red ) .

Many Christians died by Hitler and trying to fight Hitler ….more christians died than jews. Just as muslims are being slaughtered with Christians by ISIS.

Wars are about Good vs Evil .
Tribes of construction are always fighting tribes of destruction.

There will always be battles -religion or not .
Its evolution . May the best man win !

The native americans warred with each other for land /power before ANY white man ever settled North America.
Same with African tribes /Asian tribes -plenty of death and beheadings in and between many violent tribes.

Warriors come in all colors and have effected all nations .

If the above list of “terrible christians ” , abagond, is to deflect from our current warrior tribe of the day , Islamic terrorists, then you are on the side of destruction.
Because TODAY and for the last 50 years the middle east is the problem as far as maintaining a violent stance. “Behead the infidels “-they are right out of the Nazi handbook !

There is one very important difference. The Islamists see themself as muslims, the Nazis didn’t see themself as christians. Hitler was not just no “real christian”, he was no christian at all (from the Catholic Church’s point of view he was still a catholic, because babtized in his childhood). Obviously nearly all Nazis grew up as christians and were babtized, but it was clear from the beginning that National Socialism was at odds with Christianity and the Nazis actively fought the Churches. What belief system the Nazis had is a bit difficult to say, because they waren’t atheists either. Hitler himself was obsessed with “destiny” (Vorsehung), that had elected him as the leader. The Nazis created a new religious denomination, you could put down in official documents: “gottgläubig” (believing in god). That was considered the politically correct thing to be in Nazi Germany and helped greatly in your career, while being a christian was a problem (catholic more so than protestant)

The much better comparison to the Islamists are the Franco regime in Spain and the Dollfuß/Schuschnigg regime in Austria, because they were actively supported by the Catholic Church in their crimes.

Part of what is wrong with Islamophobia is that it sees all Muslims as the same. That is the nature of prejudiced thinking – outgroup homogeneity. So all these fine distinctions that people here are making about ingroup Hitler are rarely made about outgroup ISIS.

I went to school in the US North. I noticed that it always fought on the right side in every single war! Amazing! But even at that tender age I suspected it was because the winners get to write the history books.

I don’t think that makes sense at all. Stalin was a christian in the same way, but it’s obviosly ridiculous to account his atrocities to Christianity. What you have to look at is if the ideology is based on the religion, not if the person is in some way affiliated with the religion. And that is definitly not the case with Communism and National Socialism, but it is with Islamism. An example from the Islamic World for the former are the Kurds in the PKK. They are Muslims and they are violent, but their ideology has nothing to do with Islam.

august west – your facts and numbers are completely wrong. your work is in error and is considered fiction. it is laughable. i have seen the real numbers and as the quran teaches islamist have killed 10 times more people through history then any other cult. As for white people, have always found them to be the nicest. middle east people have not come out of the stone age yet and are mostly neanderthals … if you criticize them, say telling a muslim you should take a shower every day and use head and shoulders so you do not have dandruf all over your clothes, a muslim or middle eastern man would consider this remark cause to have your head cut off. if said to a white man they would all say we will take that under consideration …

” As for white people, have always found them to be the nicest. middle east people have not come out of the stone age yet and are mostly neanderthals … if you criticize them, say telling a muslim you should take a shower every day and use head and shoulders so you do not have dandruf all over your clothes, a muslim or middle eastern man would consider this remark cause to have your head cut off. if said to a white man they would all say we will take that under consideration …”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

ROTFLMAO

This blog desperately needed some comic relief. I appreciate you for providing it. White people (as a collective) ARE – VERY considerate… LOL …yeah, probably the most considerate people in the Universe!

You seem to have neglected any wars in the Muslim conquest, the Arab Slave Trade (roughly seen to be twice the atlantic slave trade but you’re a race baiter so no shock you ignore this), the fact that the Crusades were done in response to Muslim belligerence, and claimed any act by a Christian government done in the name of Christianity, which is silly.

Wow, this is so full of lies and completely fabricated statistics, I don’t think there’s much point in countering your article, but I’ll give it a try:

I’m NOT Christian, I’m Atheist, but I know Christianity as I know a lot of other religions, including Islam. I read quite a bit of the Bible, the Quran and the Hadiths, among others.

Parts of the Bible are over 4’000 years old. It’s been written by many different people over long periods of time. There is no unity of thought. Most of the evil things are descriptive, historic accounts of what some people did in the past, e.g. where Moses sacks a city, has all the men killed and all the women enslaved. There is no indication that this is supposed to be a good thing and much less any suggestion that it should be imitated.

The evil laws from the Bronze age are rejected by Jesus, when he says “who has no sin throw the first stone”. So there is absolutely NO support for doing evil in the Bible for anyone who claims to be Christian.

In fact, the abolitionists based their opposition to slavery on the Bible. Hence no one practicing slavery could be considered “Christian”.

The Quran, on the other hand, appears to be the product of a single, sick mind. Mohammed was clearly a psychopath, sex obsessed, pedophile and extremely violent. He committed theft, armed robbery, ordered assassinations, justified lying to promote Islam, supported and practiced slavery and sexual exploitation, practiced torture, prosecuted those who tried to leave Islam, hated Jews and all non-Muslims, made war and ordered all of his followers to do likewise.

Mohammed is supposed to be “the best man ever” and anything he did can be imitated by all Muslims, so all of the above horrors are repeated over and over, as we see from ISIS right now. Prosecution of Jews, of Christians, of other non-Muslims, of Muslim “heretics”, it’s all an integral part of Islam.

NOTHING like it exists in the Bible. Crimes, wars, the Inquisition etc. were NOT based on the Bible. Interestingly, Reformation appeared when the average Christian could read the Bible. That’s also when Christians started opposing things like slavery. Reading the Bible makes Christians LESS violent.

Reading the Quran makes Muslims MORE violent.

In your list, you forgot to mention the massacre of over 80 MILLION Hindus, while Muslims tried to convert them to Islam. I also don’t see the 2 million deaths during the separation of Pakistan and India, which was ONLY based on Islam.

I don’t see the mass-murder of the Armenians or the Greeks by Muslim Turks, which was done based on Islam against non-Muslims.

Muslims took over 70 MILLION black slaves from Sub-Saharan Africa and over 1 million from Southern Europe.

That’s 5x more than the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Which started when Europeans discovered MUSLIM slave markets on the coasts of Africa. Europeans didn’t hunt and capture black slaves, they bought them FROM MUSLIMS!

That’s documented by a writer from Ghana, who is revolted by those facts, although he himself is a Muslim.

Mohammed, like most Arabs, hated and despised blacks and the Arab term for “slave” means “black man”:

They also launched 800 BATTLES against Europe – and that says nothing about their war on Persia – the most advanced civilization, before they were attacked by Muslims and had Islam forced on them – India, Indonesia, Thailand, China, Russia etc.

Every single country that currently has a strong Muslim population (30%+) has been invaded by Muslims, generally attacked militarily.

As for the violence, it is FAR, FAR worse in Muslim countries than what you claim. Most crimes are simply not reported or entered into any statistics.

This article is too easy to pick apart… The wars listed here as so called “Christian wars” is disingenuous as most of them were not wars fought over religion. WW1 & WW2 were not religious wars, they included belligerents from all religions. The fact you include those global conflicts as religious Christian wars shows your bias against Christians. Furthermore crime is and will always be more abundant in a FREE society where people aren’t living under the oppressive thumb of wealthy dictators who will take your hands for theft. I could go on but I’ve got better things to do.

It seems like you are giving a history lesson instead of taking apart what was said in the post. None of which really disputes what he said at all.

Also from sources I found Abd is the word referring to slave regardless of race. I have yet to find it specifically meaning black man. Of course those that don’t know any better will automatically apply it to blacks.

I also don’t think the point is whether it was a ear in the name of God etc. But whether the individuals who waged the war was Christian or Muslim. Christians can’t claim high road based on what the Bible teaches as often times they will wenter against it and thus the list of wars.

You are WRONG: Abd DOES mean slave, but it ALSO means “black man”. In other words, slave and black man are SYNONYMOUS, in Arabic.

You can look this up in any Arab dictionary, so the denial is pretty pathetic.

The hatred of blacks by Arabs is extremely well documented, as we’ve also seen over the last few years in Northern Africa, especially in Libya.

Given the 70 MILLION black slaves Arabs have taken over time, there should in theory be millions of blacks in Arab Muslim countries, but there are only very few, if any. Contrary the Americas, where blacks now represent a significant part of the population, from 14% in the US to about 50% in Brazil and the Carribeans.

That is because Muslims castrated all black male slaves and didn’t allow black women to reproduce (killed their babies), which is equivalent to a genocide of epic proportions.

So the treatment of slaves by Muslims was infinitely worse than their treatment by white people.

The US homicide rates concern, to 80%, BLACK PEOPLE, both, as perpetrators and as victims!

Those 80% are almost entirely crimes committed in GANG LAND, about 3% of the US territory.

If you remove those regions and the populations which are violent-prone from the statistics, the US have LOWER crime rates than most of Europe.

WHITE people have a homicide rate of about 1 to 1.5, i.e. among the best in the world.

Black against white crime is about 10x higher than white against black crime.

Around 50% of all rapes against white women are committed by blacks (14% of the population), but only 1% of all rapes of black women are committed by white men.

It’s all available at fbi.gov, under “Uniform Crime Statistics”.

You might want to update your views of US crime, given the more than 80% drop in violent crime between 1990 and 2008, following the gradual introduction of shall-issue CONCEAL CARRY LICENCES.

This was AGAIN confirmed when Chicago and Detroit finally allowed concealed carry as well. Their homicide rates immediately fell sharply.

The police chief of Detroit – a black man – confirmed this recently. He said that the reduction in crime could largely be attributed to “armed, private citizens”. Look it up, his comments were published recently.

Anyway, your claim that WHITE AMERICA has a homicide rate of 3.4 is BULLSHIT.

Where is the number of 70 million black slaves in the Middle East from? As far as I recall there were around 4 million slaves traded in the trans-saharan trade and 6 million in the trans-Indian Ocean trade.

“You are WRONG: Abd DOES mean slave, but it ALSO means “black man”. In other words, slave and black man are SYNONYMOUS, in Arabic.

You can look this up in any Arab dictionary, so the denial is pretty pathetic.”—I did look it up plus was happy to speak with someone who speaks the language and was able to clearly clarify it, so calling your bluff was pretty simple. Besides that if you had a source that supported your claim you would have provided which you did not. So again people that do not know any better would use Abd to mean slave. There is actual another word that refers to black if I am clear on my understanding of what I read.

“The hatred of blacks by Arabs is extremely well documented, as we’ve also seen over the last few years in Northern Africa, especially in Libya.”—I never denied the hatred of blacks by Arabs so the additional information is not really necessary. Feels like a clear deflection from your lack of information.

Everyone can check them for themselves, so I’m not going to debate you on this. There’s no point in debating easily verified FACTS!

The fall in crime rates was so massive that even NYT had to admit it, though they called it “inexplicable”, because it didn’t fit in with any of their favorite pseudo-explanations, it ONLY fit the development of gun rights, which, to them, was unacceptable.

As for the black vs. white crime rates, I simply point you to the FBI data.

If you persist, then prove your point.

I know what you’ll find if you look, which is why you will never post actual links to the FBI data. And I have better things to do than to debate people who are in denial of reality.

““1% of all rapes of black women are committed by white men.”—And this only accounts for reported. Black women are least likely to report rapes from some stats I read.”

THAT DOESN’T MATTER !!!

Even assuming that 90% of all rapes of black women were NOT reported, that would still not change a thing about the 1% for white men, because the PROPORTIONS would stay the same!

There’s no reason to assume that black women would report rape by white men less often than rape by black men – quite the contrary, actually!

If they were raped by a white man, they could expect immediate media coverage. They could become instantly famous and be defended by all the race baiters like Sharpton.

Remember that black woman in the Duke Lacross players?

She WRONGLY ACCUSED 4 young, white men from good families of having raped her. The police believed her, although one of the accused had a ROCK SOLID ALIBY. He had been filmed by an ATM camera at the exact time of the alleged rape at the other end of town!

The official statistic says the exact opposite – it’s exceedingly RARE, which is why it received so much coverage when there was such a case.

Your claim that a 1% reported rape of black women by white men has to be COMPLETELY wrong shows that you are a total racist: even if the number was underestimated by a factor of 10 – which would be EXTREME – it would still mean that rape against black women by white men is exceedingly rare!

“You’re in TOTAL DENIAL, aren’t you?”—No honey, You’re in denial which is why you are writing a whole paragraph about your denial. You can’t face the facts and I understand. You believe that whites are so good and stats supports that when reality is stats do not tell a full picture of what is true. Stats are skewed in a number of ways. One being that stats do not report for every precinct. Two they only show what is reported/arrest.

“THAT DOESN’T MATTER !!!”–It matters a great deal because if you are quoting your statistics to make a claim that only 1% of black females are raped by white men then it stands to reason to quote a study that shows they are least likely to report. If they are not willing to report then those said starts are skewed. They are not accurate and thus you are quoting falsehood. Your caps tells me it bothers you. It seems to do that to people just hearing the truth.

“Even assuming that 90% of all rapes of black women were NOT reported, that would still not change a thing about the 1% for white men, because the PROPORTIONS would stay the same!”—Did you fail math?

“There’s no reason to assume that black women would report rape by white men less often than rape by black men – quite the contrary, actually!”—-I never said they would I simply stated they are least likely to report which says an awful lot about not only your reading comprehension but your lack of knowledge of facts.

“The official statistic says the exact opposite – it’s exceedingly RARE, which is why it received so much coverage when there was such a case.”—-It was rare because it made the news. It was rare because she spoke up, but White man raping black women is far from rare. I mean it has been happening for so long it is hard to just erase.”official” stats only show reported/arrested. Meaning if a man paid someone off for his rape then it is highly likely that he would not be on those stats. If he put fear into the person he raped then it is likely he would not be on those stats. A white cop was arrested a little while ago for raping 4 black women that he stopped. As him being a cop he may get off, but doesn’t change that he raped 4 black women.

“Your claim that a 1% reported rape of black women by white men has to be COMPLETELY wrong shows that you are a total racist: even if the number was underestimated by a factor of 10 – which would be EXTREME – it would still mean that rape against black women by white men is exceedingly rare!”—Can you read? That was not my claim. My claim was that black women rarely report. If they rarely report then what you quote does not hold much accuracy to make that true. Half truths are not truths. You my dear are simply projecting your own harbored racism onto me.

You may want to do better research next time. Particularly on stats, different languages, and Atheism. All f which you claim to be acquainted with but really have no clue of. You might also want to see someone about your anger issues. I know the truth hurts, but what good to yelling at a computer screen do?

If you need sources I can post them all. Even for the Abd you keep claiming to mean one things and it actually mean another.

where is ottoman war against non believers that started in 13 century untill they were defeated in 19th century ,where is the mention of 500 yrs of inslaving the eastern europian nations and milions who were killed by the ottomans,where is the mention of 400 yrs of muslim invasion of christian countries like syria,egypt,lebanon and so on,where is the mention of 1400 yrs of african and europian slave trade by the muslims in which milons have died ,where is the mention of muslims castrating their black slaves ,where is the menttion of 80000000 hindus who were killed in 500 yrs by muslims,where is the mention of rivers of blood muslims left behind in persia which Al-Baladhuri and al tabari bragg about if we trully want to be intelectually honest this article is BS,,,,

Christian extremist do plenty, but the idea that they are Christian will paint them as “bad” individuals rather than as Christians. As much as you like saying “not all muslims” the reality is that when Muslin extremist do something all muslims get looked at as violent. People, including you, have and will pull out there religion as the cause. Then turn around and claim ” not all”.

could you explain the specific things that christian extremists do in the modern world that would compare?

i don’t think christians are more violent than muslims. but if there are christian extremist groups roaming the countryside, attacking schools & disrupting society on this level i’d definitely like to know about it.

it’s tough to compare fully organized groups like Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Taliban, Hezbollah, and the many others to people who carried out their crimes pretty much alone. your entire list is a bunch of lone loonies some of which aren’t even “Christian” but simply “right wing?”

the groups i mentioned are carrying acts of terror out on such a large scale that it’s disrupting entire nations of people. once again, you don’t see christian extremists disrupting society on a scale like this at all.

but thanks again for the interesting article. if those are the 10 worst terrorist attacks by christian extremists “christian nations” should consider themselves lucky.

“your entire list is a bunch of lone loonies some of which aren’t even “Christian” but simply “right wing?””—-But this precisely proves my point. You were quick to label them as “crazy” individuals to avoid the fact that these well documented christian extremists do violent things.

Here is where you change positions in order to excuse: could you explain the specific things that christian extremists do in the modern world that would compare?

You asked me to explain specific things that christian extremist do in the modern world that compare. Not if those groups are as organized as the Muslims extremist you mention. My link fairly provided for what you asked.

You further tried to exuse by saying: once again, you don’t see christian extremists disrupting society on a scale like this at all.

This implies that the lives and buildings of Muslims is not a disruption. I am sorry that you view their lives, buildings, and rights as a minor inconvenience in society.

“no not really. because you still don’t see christian extremist groups wreaking havoc on such a scale”—You stay in denial about a lot of things so I won’t view this as any different. At any rate the my point is that you will excuse their violence and that is precisely what you did even though that article only provided those arrested for the act many of those individuals are part of a group know as The Army of God. *shrugs*

“i’m not changing positions, i’ll stay with everything i’ve said so far.”—My purpose was never to change your position. My purpose was to prove how bias you really are towards Muslims. Which I did.

“i haven’t made any excuses.”—My goal was not to compare. That was your goal. Was it not you asking me to find groups that compare? Precisely so you can limit the amount of people seen as Christian extremist. :) At any rate you made an excuse by trying to a) exclude who can be considered a Christian extremist and then b) excluding which is considered a “real” violent act. Could be other excuses but I will save it for only if you continue to go about this denial.

“i can argue that point with you all day if you want.”—You could, but you would in turn lose. Why you might be thinking? Because a Christian Extremist is not defined by what you want it to be verses what it is. There acts are not on a large scale based on what you considered a large scale, but what it is. They exist. They act. That is life. You don’t have to like it.

i’m not excusing violence i’m comparing the scale of said violence & it’s effect on the society which is being attacked. for example, let’s compare “The Army of God” in scale to say the Taliban. Muslim extremist groups carry out attacks daily, and they are far more disruptive to the societies they inhabit. People die daily at their hands. your assumption is noted.

“My purpose was to prove how bias you really are towards Muslims. Which I did.”

No you have not, but your blanket assumptions are noted once again :)

“At any rate you made an excuse by trying to a) exclude who can be considered a Christian extremist and then b) excluding which is considered a “real” violent act.”

wow, are you having a conversation with yourself LOL! i did not exclude or excuse anyone. i certainly didn’t exclude or even discuss what a “real” “violent” “act” “is.” but you keep spinning in circles WHOOSH!

“Because a Christian Extremist is not defined by what you want it to be verses what it is.”

i’m not talking about individual extremists (i never took time to define “Christian Extremist” LOL, WHOOSH again), key word i used “groups.” big difference in scale when comparing one person to a terrorist organization, which is capable of carrying out large scale attacks consistently and is a way bigger threat to society as a whole.

It is nice of you to write a paragraph to explain your excuses, but what I said still stands dear. It is not going to change simply because you decided you would rather compare ( a lie you accused me of doing above by the way ;)).

“your assumption is noted”—That is not an assumption dear that is a proven fact in your very own statements and responses to Muslim violence. For example I posted an article of Christian violence and see how quick you side step that to focus on Muslim extremist. Not to mention the dismissal of Christian Extremist as a select few.

“i’m not talking about individual extremists”—Last I checked you jumped in on what I said above so you defining or not defining Christian Extremist is of no matter here (and I said to you several times not to reply to my comments if you have no understanding of it).

Here is what you specifically asked of me “could you explain the specific things that christian extremists do in the modern world that would compare?” Please show me where you specified groups. I am sure you will rush to an early comment in which you said groups or even a later to cover your trail but we were not talking about groups and if you really want to go with groups…those individuals mentioned are in a group. The Army of God.

“only modern extremist christian group i’ve ever heard of that acts like the Taliban is this one right here”—-And you would not have heard of that because you were too business trying to convince the masses of how bad the Muslims are.

trying to have a conversation with you is like trying to keep a tornado in one place. you just keep on spinning & spinning. WHOOSH! i get it, you’re being obtuse on purpose.

your assumptions are noted once again Sharina but let me clarify so you can “understand”

i am not making excuses, i stand behind everything i’ve said here.

i said i don’t believe christians are more violent than muslims & i gave my reasons why. you haven’t proven anything to anyone but yourself as usual.

*we were not talking about groups specifically*

I have no idea what you are talking about, but i’ve said the word “group” in almost every one of my posts. heck even in the post i asked you a question the word “group” was there. i can’t imagine you are are this obtuse on purpose, really?

I am not being obtuse at all and I get in your mind you believe that you are not excusing, but that is not what any of your post indicate. You keep giving your reasons simply because you are trying to get me to see it your way. If I was indeed assuming then you would not be trying so hard to explain it.

“I have no idea what you are talking about”—You never do and labeling me as obtuse won’t change that dear.

“i said i don’t believe christians are more violent than muslims & i gave my reasons why. you haven’t proven anything to anyone but yourself as usual..”—I know what you said, but you responded to my post which was not about what YOU said or really about what YOU think. You are a bit narcissistic. I don’t remember stating my goal was to prove anything to anyone else, but like most of what you say you start to imagine and…haha…assume my goals. I am sorry but you don’t know me very well so you may stop trying to convince yourself you do.

In fact many of my responses that you replied to…..I repeat YOU replied to I never specified at all. You took it upon yourself to try to specify only and even when I made a statement you came back in efforts to specify. So realistically I was talking about extremist in general you took it upon yourself and yourself only to try to put in groups. So in all you create this sort of sh*t storm and then decided to get upset when people are not using your definition or your logic or your etc. Being that you responded to me to dispute me or whatever the case may be you are thus following my definition and not yours.

FYI You still managed to do exactly what I said you would do. Dang I am good.

You are free to quote the whole conversation and re-post it if it will give you some solace, but what I said still stands strong. Here is my follow up response to that post

“Christian extremist do plenty, but the idea that they are Christian will paint them as “bad” individuals rather than as Christians.”—This was me making polite conversation about Christian extremist, but you had to make it an argument about Who is worse. So really it is all on you. Again if you don’t get what I am saying why respond just to make it an argument?

DISCLAIMER: not all muslims are alike, not christians are alike. but for the sake of this thread’s topic i will say i don’t think christians are more violent than muslims.

SHARINA: @George

Christian extremist do plenty, but the idea that they are Christian will paint them as “bad” individuals rather than as Christians. As much as you like saying “not all muslims” the reality is that when Muslin extremist do something all muslims get looked at as violent. People, including you, have and will pull out there religion as the cause. Then turn around and claim ” not all”.

ME: “Sharina

could you explain the specific things that christian extremists do in the modern world that would compare?

i don’t think christians are more violent than muslims. but if there are christian extremist “groups” roaming the countryside, attacking schools & disrupting society on this level i’d definitely like to know about it.”
—————————————————————————————————

And it also shows that you are now playing the bait and switch. You only decided to now add the original first comment that YOU responded to because you feel like it proves your point (oddly how it was not even part of the conversation according to you), but that original comment again was not a response to you. It still does not change that my follow up did not mention “groups” even though you continued to say as such. Again you took my comment about Christian extremist and ran with it into your own tangent about groups. Yet you still refuse to acknowledge that not only did my links provide groups, but you still managed to do everything I said you will do to excuse your bias.

At this point you are arguing just to argue. You have your Christian Extremist as well as your Christian Extremist “group” of a modern era no less and still all you can do is complain about how they are not as bad as the Taliban or other American government fashion terrorist group labeled Muslims. ROFL!!

In all honesty Christian terrorism goes the way of racism in America. No one wants to talk about it and it is very often sweeped under the rug. Like anything else that makes Americans look bad they try to attribute it to a few individuals and not to the very home grown groups/individuals that exist in America, yet the TV is riddle with acts by Taliban or some other group that then get’s attributed to all Muslims.

Although the focus was on war, that does nothe and should not exclude other acts of violence done by Christian and Muslim extremist.

“In all honesty Christian terrorism goes the way of racism in America. No one wants to talk about it and it is very often sweeped under the rug.”

the fact that Christian terrorism so easily swept under the rug should tell you something. Christian terrorism is not a clear & present danger to our society or any society for that matter, it’s easily dismissed because it’s not a major threat.

certain things are impossible to sweep under the rug & cannot be ignored. i could give you a laundry list of examples but a few that come to mind are flying planes into buildings, blowing up marathons, kidnapping people, video taping executions for propaganda, massacring schools, & destabilizing society in general.

Either you are incredible desperate or you have such low self-esteem that you require medication. Here is yet another comment not directed at you or really has anything to do with you yet you run at it as if that is the case. The real whoosh belongs to you because everything just goes right over your head and you proceed on like a dog running for a ball that goes through the whole in the fence and the dog runs into the fence.

I don’t care what your OPINION on Christian Terrorism, because I have this thing called sources that provide information on the threat they pose. A threat that again gets swept under the rug.

“i could give you a laundry list of examples but a few that come to mind are flying planes into buildings, blowing up marathons, kidnapping people, video taping executions for propaganda, massacring schools, & destabilizing society in general”—-Interesting how this list looks exactly the same as the Christian extremist or Terrorist. Miss me with your foolishness.

I know you are likely trying to redeem yourself, but you will have a better chance if you get your constant paranoia under control. That and your need to believe your opinion is above facts. Confirmation bias can be a MF.

The same can apply to Christian terrorism. Christian terrorism is not only a threat to Muslim-dominant countries it’s also a threat to other countries where Christianity is the dominant religion. History can certainly attest to global Christian terrorism (in the name of Christian missionary). You mentioned massacring schools, but how about the infamous massacre in Jonestown, Guyana (1978). A friend of my mum cousin’s (East Oakland native) was one of the hundreds of victims that were massacred by a Christian named Jim Jones.

Also, let’s NOT forget the KKK terrorism in the good ole’ name of Christianity. Many southern black Christians were the victims of that form of Christian terrorism. Whether individuals acknowledge KKK terrorism as Christian terrorism or not those burning crosses were definitely a reminder of terrorism in the name of Christianity.

It really boils down to who are affected by Christian and Muslim terrorism. Personally, I believe that whites are affected by and fearful of Muslim terrorism and blacks are affected by Christian terrorism (from slavery to the present). Christian terrorism affects modern-day black people mentally and spiritually. The white Jesus is a black person’s number one terrorist because he looks so much like the person who’s gunning down black males every month in our society (from Eric Garner to Tamir Rice). As ancestor Khalid Abdul Muhammad said: “Give Jesus a hair cut and shave and he’ll look just like the white man in the police department or Ku Klux Klan.” Enough said!!

i know about Jim Jones, the KKK & Jesus. all of which you consider Christian extremist terrorists? i suppose you see these guys as pretty much the same as the Taliban or whatever. fair enough, that’s your opinion, mine differs obviously.

Jim Jones & his group killed themselves, they committed suicide or Jim killed them all through poison, i wasn’t there. but you never saw them “flying planes into buildings, blowing up marathons, kidnapping people, video taping executions for propaganda, massacring schools, & destabilizing society in general.”

Is the KKK still carrying out large scale terrorist attacks in today’s modern world? Are they a bigger threat to our nation then the islamic terror groups that would love to see our country burn to the ground?

when was the last time white Jesus carried out an attack on the US?

Christian extremist groups do not threaten the modern world on the same level at all.

I surely wouldn’t doubt that you don’t know anything about Jim Jones or his cult. Massacres and destruction come in many forms, like racism and other stuff, which you can agree to. My point, Mr. Ryder, is the nature of terrorism. I certainly agree with you on the fact that Christian terrorism is constantly swept under the rug.

Muslim terrorism does affect everyone living in America, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. However, there are groups of people who would say they are affected by domestic terrorism, whether it’s called Christian or Western terrorism, regularly.

Yes, Jones and his cult committed suicide, which is totally different than flying planes into skycrapers, but there were groups of people who were blown up in buildings, i.e. church buildings, by terrorists who professed to be “good Christians”. Come on, there’s two sides to everything in nature and society.

To paraphrase, you said that there’s a bigger threat that would love to see our nation leveled. Well, there’s an overt threat to a group of people in “our nation” that would love to see that group of people removed. Mr. Ryder, other people’s life matter too, right?

“you are completely incoherent, or delusional.”—-Here is an example of an ad hominem (you know that word you over excessively used to describe what I was doing while trying to claim you have not or don’t do). Calling me names will not debunk what I said. It still stands.

“i don’t see Christian extremist groups”—You don’t see a lot with your head in the sand so I am not really surprise. Heck you refuse to do research on christian terrorism all the while claiming they don’t do it. In the list I presented above was of several accounts of christian terrorist who had kidnapped people and killed them, but that is not near as funny how your laundry list is now the only “proof” or merit for christian Terrorism.

“the fact that you think both groups pose an equal threat to society is laughable. seriously. but your entitled to your opinion as always.”—-I know I am entitled to my opinion. You are the only one who seems to be visibly offended by it. You focus more on it than actual facts.

i’m not insulting you at all. you ARE completely incoherent & incapable of following a conversation in english, that’s a fact. you can’t even understand after i “quote the whole conversation and re-post it”

it did give me some solace though thanks :)

you are a cherry picking incredulous derailer. keep on spinning tho WHOOSH!

DISCLAIMER: not all muslims are alike, not christians are alike. but for the sake of this thread’s topic i will say i don’t think christians are more violent than muslims.

SHARINA: @George

Christian extremist do plenty, but the idea that they are Christian will paint them as “bad” individuals rather than as Christians. As much as you like saying “not all muslims” the reality is that when Muslin extremist do something all muslims get looked at as violent. People, including you, have and will pull out there religion as the cause. Then turn around and claim ” not all”.

ME: “Sharina

could you explain the specific things that christian extremists do in the modern world that would compare?

i don’t think christians are more violent than muslims. but if there are christian extremist “groups” roaming the countryside, attacking schools & disrupting society on this level i’d definitely like to know about it.”
—————————————————————————————————

“My point, Mr. Ryder, is the nature of terrorism. I certainly agree with you on the fact that Christian terrorism is constantly swept under the rug.”

Mr. Cooper

i cannot deny that. but what i will say is this, same thing i said to Sharina:

“the fact that Christian terrorism so easily swept under the rug should tell you something. Christian terrorism is not a clear & present danger to our society or any society for that matter, it’s easily dismissed because it’s not a major threat.

certain things are impossible to sweep under the rug & cannot be ignored. i could give you a laundry list of examples but a few that come to mind are flying planes into buildings, blowing up marathons, kidnapping people, video taping executions for propaganda, massacring schools, & destabilizing society in general.”

According to the 1973 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (my mum gave me her’s), it defines the KKK as a ‘white Christian separatist group’. It didn’t mentioned “extremist”, which it is. Also, in that same dictionary, the NOI and BBP (black separatist groups) were defined as “radical, but if you define the word ‘radical’ one would learn that means ‘root’ (dealing with the root of things). Yes, definitions of words change tremendously.

Let’s agree that some terrorism is swept under the rug while other terrorism is left exposed. I guess it boils down to what nation or society has the power and/or platform to sweep things under the rug, right?

what happens to Christian extremist groups when they act out on their extremism?

they face the full wrath of the Western world. they are ridiculed & dismissed as crazies yes, but typically this is after their movement is completely annihilated by the full force of the law. see Waco for example.

we don’t take too kindly to terrorists in the western world nor should we.

we don’t allow that crap to keep going on like they in the middle east where these radical groups clearly don’t face enough opposition to erase their existence from the face of the earth. they just keep going like it’s business as usual & the death toll keeps piling up daily.

“I’m not insulting you at all. you ARE completely incoherent & incapable of following a conversation in english, that’s a fact.”—I wonder if Abagond would say the same thing? But again your opinion dear that you often confuse with a fact. ;) besides I don’t hold english as some high standard and an ad hominem seems to be the only card you can play. :)

“it did give me some solace though thanks”—-I glad it did. So repost it a third time. I am absolutely loving watching you post something that catches you in your foolishness and you are none the wiser.

“you are a cherry picking incredulous derailer. keep on spinning tho WHOOSH!”—Yet I can probably pick several examples of your cherry picking. Isolating groups as the only type of comparable terrorism or even making your list the marker for terrorism.

I will says that America is no stranger to sweeping things under the rug and I view it as similar to how America deals with racism. As I stated in a previous comment they will paint it as bad individuals to avoid acknowledgin the groups that act on it. Mind you cetrain individuals do, but not wholly.

the US doesn’t dismiss Christian terror groups at all, they certainly don’t “sweep them under the rug.”

the US crushes these radicals entirely and then openly ridicules their ideas in public forums so potential followers don’t get any ideas in the future.

once they’ve been crushed to dust in plain sight (Waco) for everyone to see, they are labeled as lunatics, and everything they stood for is deconstructed.

this is not done behind closed doors & there is no conspiracy to hide their acts of terror from the public. in fact the public participates in a collective dismissal & ridicule of everything the extremist group stood for.

look at westboro baptist church and the general public opinion of those lunatics. & they haven’t even blown anything up yet…

maybe the middle east should follow our example & all those Islamic terror groups will be a thing of the past. but they will be here forever if they aren’t opposed collectively by the societies that harbor them.

“It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god except Allaah and that I am His Messenger, except in one of three cases: a soul for a soul (i.e., in the case of murder); a married man who commits adultery; and one who leaves his religion and splits form the jamaa’ah (main group of Muslims).” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6878; Muslim, 1676)

Have you done a post on Christian Terrorism/Extremist? If not I think it would be very enlightening for people to see how well protected Christian Terrorism actually is.

This source has some, but it lacks in some other major groups that are actually considered Christian Terrorist/Extremist. Not to say it does not mention them, but fails to detail them. The Army of God actually has a website.

These groups are in plain sight yet the U.S. still sees there acts as no big deal or one not big enough to really put to the forefront the crimes they commit. They pick that one bad guy out and remove blame from the group as a whole.

Furthermore many of the Christian Terrorist groups are Militia. It is absolutely amazing that small armies of people are basically going unnoticed in the manner in which they are. They impose acts of but not limited to murder, forced conversion, forced removal, kidnapping, illegal drug trafficking, extortion, mutilation, torture, rape, and child laborers. Many of those child labors then turn around and serve as soldiers, porters, and sex slave for said groups.

I really have to wonder how much more that is swept under the rug when it comes to Christian Terrorist/Extremist.

“I just read that the Taliban are considered political extremist/terrorist. Meaning their motives are not done over a religious factor.”

WRONG!

You realize these Taliban utilize suicide bombers regularly right?

“Clerics sanctify the bombers in their sermons, organizations including Hamas and Islamic Jihad identify and celebrate them as fighters in the jihad, and foreign donors provide aid that is siphoned off to the families of the martyrs.”

religious beliefs, nationalistic ideologies, obedience to authoritarian leaders, or political motivations all factor in. but it sure as heck isn’t as simple as politics, religion certainly plays a role & is definitely a motive.

religion & politics go hand in hand in middle eastern countries btw, Islamism, Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic democracy. all their political systems are rooted in their religion so yes, you are very wrong once again.

Any tactics that an extremist group uses does not dictate what type of group they are. As such it is gravely apparent that some people don’t really know the difference or just can’t separate the difference. To say that this group is religiously motivated simply because they practice said religion is equally as careless as….wait Abagond put it better so I will repeat “Calling, say, the 9/11 terrorists “Muslim” is like calling Hitler “Christian”

At any rate there attacks do not center around Christians or purging Christians so much as it it centered around disrupting political powers. Particularly that of the U.S. In thinking on this I have to wonder how many other so called Muslim terrorist are motivated by taking out western world powers as opposed to Christians or other religions. I think I will research and post later.

saying the taliban are not religiously motivated is naive as heck & get this, it’s an OPINION, your naive unfounded OPINION. like i said:

“Clerics sanctify the bombers in their sermons, organizations including Hamas and Islamic Jihad identify and celebrate them as fighters in the jihad, and foreign donors provide aid that is siphoned off to the families of the martyrs.”

These are groups that seem to want separate states and are motivated by such a want rather than religion. Caucasus Emirate, Iraqi insurgents, Abu Sayyaf, Jemaah Islamiah, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and East Turkestan Islamic Movement.

Abu Sayyaf for example “Since its inception in 1991, the group has carried out bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and extortion[7] in what they describe as their fight for an independent Islamic province in the Philippines.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Sayyaf

That is quite a few considering that most believe they are religiously motivated.

Again. Saying I am wrong is not disputing me at all dear. Anyone can write a paragraph and say someone is wrong and give their opinion on why but that is not disputing me in the slightest.

“Clerics sanctify the bombers in their sermons, organizations including Hamas and Islamic Jihad identify and celebrate them as fighters in the jihad, and foreign donors provide aid that is siphoned off to the families of the martyrs”—This quote does not dispute me because frankly a person who practices a religion does not equal their acts as being religiously motivated. If you had an inkling of what Abagond’s quote meant you would realize that but once again the obtuse nature of your responses win again.

The real question here is why is YOUR insecurity my problem? Why is YOUR low self-esteem my problem? Why is YOUR denial my problem? Day in and day out you bring your problems to the forefront and try to push them on me. You need to learn to deal with your issues and move on. I have supported my claims while you run off your opinion/make believe facts coupled with confirmation bias responses that you cherry picked from a source that you are trying to attribute to something else. I am tired of arguing with you. You’re thickheaded. You make something out of absolutely nothing. sources be darn with you.

So from this point on, do not respond to me or mention my name or anything at all in my direction. I don’t feel the need to waste my time on your continued childishness. I will notify Abagond if he has not already seen that I have made this request.

al-Qaeda’s main goal seems to be to fight the United States. Makes me wonder what the U.S. did to them to make them want to come up with such an elaborate plan of attack. On top of that the group was diverse in schools of thoughts and political leanings.

“Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 11 September hijackers, acted because he felt, with absolute certainty, that he had no option but to wage a jihad (holy war). He was obliged to fulfill his religious duty.”

“Imam Samudra, the Bali bomber referred to above, saw the night clubs of Bali as part of a general cultural assault mounted by the West against the Islamic world.”

Once again and as always you are reading something in my post I am not saying and equally taking things from quotes and twisting them to mean what you want them to. Your issues are not my problem.

This will be my third and finale time asking you to no longer address me and at this point I will ask Abagond to reiterate my request. If you ignore his then you will likely find yourself subject to the comment policy, which would not bother me at all.

Even though they are all thrown in the same boat as a result of their religious practice, I think it is safe or fair to separate them and not have them lumped as one and having the same goals. Things that are viewed as different are constantly just lumped.

Even with Mormons they seem to lump us into one and only one group of weird polygamist. The principles of the extremist in Mormons is believed to be the overall principles of the group. Though Mormon Extremist are actually purely motivated on a religious factor.

“The chant of “Death to America!” has resounded in the Islamic world since the Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iranian revolution of 1979. Because of its efforts to establish viable democracies in the Islamic world, and because it represents the most formidable global alternative to the jihadists’ vision of a world ruled by Sharia, the United States is regarded by those jihadists as the most formidable obstacle in their path.”

“The jihadists are very clear about their intentions. “America,” declared Al-Qaeda spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith, “is the head of heresy in our modern world, and [as a result] … we have the right to kill 4 million Americans — 2 million of them children — and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons.” The Saudi Sheikh Nasser ibn Hamed says it would be “permissible” to “annihilate 10 million” Americans “and burn their lands to the same extent that they burned the Muslim lands.” Osama bin Laden wrote in his “Declaration of Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders” in 1998 that “killing the Americans and their allies – both civilians and military personnel – is a commandment for every individual Muslim who can do this, in any country in which he can do this…”

Such words do not represent a deviation from Islamic tradition; they are a new manifestation of an ancient impulse.”

“The jihad likewise targets all religious groups. Historically it has been even more virulent against Hindu India than against Christian Europe; Hindus, since they were not “People of the Book” as the Qur’an calls Christians and Jews, were treated even worse by their Islamic conquerors.”

“Wherever Muslims are found, which is in almost every country on the planet, there are adherents of the ideology of jihad and Sharia supremacism. Peaceful Muslims have made no large-scale, organized attempt to delineate a countervailing vision of Islam that calls for indefinite peaceful coexistence as equals with non-Muslims, freedom of conscience, or the rejection of elements of Sharia that are at variance with otherwise universally accepted human-rights norms.”

At any rate if a group is labeled a political movement then there primary focus or goal is not religion. Most of the groups I mentioned primary targets are not other religions, but rather other political movements or westernization.

Boko Haram on the other hand seems to be another story. Even though they are purely against westernization they seem to also want to clear away anything they see as an enemy of Muslims. That can be looked at a few ways. Anything can become their enemy.

At any rate I have shared all I wish to share on this thread and will take my leave.

“Peaceful Muslims have made no large-scale, organized attempt to delineate a countervailing vision of Islam that calls for indefinite peaceful coexistence as equals with non-Muslims, freedom of conscience, or the rejection of elements of Sharia that are at variance with otherwise universally accepted human-rights norms.”

perhaps this is why radical islamic terror groups continue to wreak havoc within their nations borders.

perhaps they should consider keeping their politics & religion separate & oppose these groups collectively…but we know that’s never going to happen.

“the jihadists’ envision of a world ruled by Sharia, the United States is regarded by those jihadists as the most formidable obstacle in their path.”

“Islamist jihad today has two chief goals, both global. One of these is to wage war against the world’s leading infidel power, the U.S., and all of its allies, particularly Israel. The other goal is to topple the evil regimes in the Muslim countries, because their leaders are only outwardly Muslim. It is thus a religious obligation to fight them, depose them, and establish a truly Islamic regime in their place. The ultimate goal of jihad is to impose Islam on the entire world as the only true religion.”

I was late to respond, but I was going to tell you not to worry about it Abagond. I have officially made up my mind what I will be doing from this point forward and what I should have done a long darn time ago with my stubborn butt. ;)

The good ole fear tactic aka appeal to emotion and yet nothing addressed my point and it was likely because the point was not even known (rolls eyes). Oh well.

As it was so eloquently put……”Sometimes religion is a cause – or at least an excuse – like in the bombings by Christian extremist Eric Rudolph or the genocide in Sudan. But most often it is not. Calling, say, the 9/11 terrorists “Muslim” is like calling Hitler “Christian”: true yet misleading. It is Islamophobia, not a serious attempt to understand the world as it is.”

never take national security advice from someone who believes 9/11 wasn’t motivated by religion. & that the terrorists weren’t muslim.

“Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 11 September hijackers, acted because he felt, with absolute certainty, that he had no option but to wage a jihad (holy war). He was obliged to fulfill his religious duty.”

Jihad is not a political war, it is holy war.

the 9/11 terrorists were indeed Muslim. there is a big difference between harboring an irrational fear & perceiving a clear & present danger.

let’s not look at a lion & treat it like a house cat. that’s how bad things happen.

if islamic powers managed to take over the united states you would say goodbye to our religious freedom among many other freedoms. they wouldn’t allow christians to carry on in their faith. it would be death to the infidels.

When it comes to Islamophobia appeal to fear is a common practice. Said individuals often find themselves reading into any objection to mean something it does not in efforts to get others to view things their way. None the wiser to the idea that others will not and do not have to agree. Some even go so far as to take inserts from articles and other means to show it proves their point, but still falls short on debunking the point the other person made. This really comes down to the other parties point being irrelevant to the Islamophobes point as they attempt to point to focus only on what they believe with means of fear.

when it comes to sweeping the threat of Islamic extremism under the rug be warned, there are consequences.

i’ve listed dozens of source material so you don’t have to take my word for it. the US takes threats like these very seriously & i hope they continue to do so, both domestically & abroad.

& to those who think radical christian extremist or right wing extremist groups are being swept under the rug:

“the internal FBI intelligence report concluded in its 2013 assessment published this month that the threat to U.S. internal security from extremists is limited to attacks and activities by eight types of domestic extremist movements—none motivated by radical Islam.

They include anti-government militia groups and white supremacy extremists, along with “sovereign citizen” nationalists, and anarchists. Other domestic threat groups outlined by the FBI assessment include violent animal rights and environmentalist extremists, black separatists, anti- and pro-abortion activists, and Puerto Rican nationalists.”

I am sure if sb was around he would be playing the whole appeal to fear angle as well. It is just the nature of islamophobes as can been seen in the comments. When sb was around all he did was copy and paste articles he swear debunked any and everything.

Oddly enough the supposedly unbiased FBI has a detailed list of foreign terrorist organizations, but fails in this detailed list of christian terrorist/extremist. The list does not include them at all. I further find it odd that the FBI does not have an equal list for domestic extremist groups that include the names. Even though many are well aware of Christian extremist I have yet to see the FBI’s list of it. I don’t it is a simple mistake as Animal activist are listed as extremist/terrorist. hmmm….

the FBI CIA & NSA must be doing a really good job monitoring “right wing” christian extremist groups. look at your daily news feed, there’s nothing. no domestic attacks or threats. every few years a random psychopath acts alone but they are typically killed or brought to justice. no domestic threat is taken lightly, the USA takes this very seriously.

the west doesn’t deal with the same level of threat the middle east does because we don’t tolerate terrorist BS in our society, but they clearly do….

“Peaceful Muslims have made no large-scale, organized attempt to delineate a countervailing vision of Islam that calls for indefinite peaceful coexistence as equals with non-Muslims, freedom of conscience, or the rejection of elements of Sharia that are at variance with otherwise universally accepted human-rights norms.”

if peaceful muslims made a large-scale collective effort to oppose these radical islamic terrorist groups it wouldn’t be the issue it is today. my question, why is it so easy for this Islamic terrorist groups to continue to operate & flourish?

until all societies collectively oppose Islamic extremist groups their madness will always be an issue the modern world must deal with. the west cannot do this job for everyone, although we certainly have tried.

FBI’s failure to detail such extremist as “right-wing” and Christian terrorism speaks volumes. In a section they label “Foreign terrorist organizations” they have not only the name of the group, but the very date they were designated. Yet the groups missing from this list are known Christian terrorist. If that is not an eye opener then the eyes looking are simply nailed shut. America takes such terrorist so serious, but is willing to detail terrorist groups all the way in other countries, while refusing to detail terrorist groups in America because they simply are of a Christian faith. OR could it be because they don’t want the world to see the terrorist on their very shores? Either way swept under the rug.

It is basically a pure distraction from reality to base the acts of christian extremist or even Muslim extremist on news feeds. Even more so a simple biased to say it does not happen on a domestic level. Does a domestic level negate that christian extremism happens/is happening? It doesn’t but for the American Islamophobe it makes all the world of a difference.

At the end of the day the Islamophobes can’t help, but prove the point placed in this thread.

“Christian extremist do plenty, but the idea that they are Christian will paint them as “bad” individuals rather than as Christians.”

No matter how they try to reword it or change the text or deflect from this very point here, they always seem to bring themselves right back to this obvious show of bias. Right over there heads and into outer space. :)

How does the U.S. government identify domestic terrorist organizations?

“It doesn’t,” I am told by a colleague who is in a position to know.

“The United States does not have a universally accepted process for defining and designating domestic terrorist individuals or groups which [is] shared throughout the law enforcement and homeland security communities.”

being cautious towards islamic extremism is not islamophia, it’s common sense & in our nations best interests. i’ve listed plenty of sources for why i take the stance that i do in regards to this issue. being dismissive doesn’t change the fact that Islamic states are taking sympathetic stance towards islamic extremism, which is why these groups continue to exist.

christian extremism is not destabilizing the west on such a scale, no matter how you try & frame it the US government doesn’t sweep it under the rug. the FBI, NSA, CIA’s job is to keep extremist folk like this in check, to monitor them, & prosecute them if they act out on their extremism. & they must be doing an ok job because we don’t have christian or islamic extremist groups blowing up marketplaces on a daily basis.

the FBI doesn’t ignore imminent terrorist threats because they are biased, & if they did you’d probably see the result would be an increase in christian/islamic extremist terrorist attacks. but you don’t see this at all because they are being held in check, they aren’t being ignored as some say….

all forms of extremism are not to be taken lightly & folks who consider the seriousness of islamic extremism & dismiss it as islamophobia are seriously misled. i hope people who take this position never have an opportunity to make decisions that could put us all at risk.

and to people who say that the FBI is biased against muslims i wonder why islamic or christian terror groups didn’t even make our domestic threat list? hmmmmm. probably because we are taking all extremist threats seriously, as we should.

Most islamophobes don’t know the difference between caution and basic biased/fear of. Time and time in their comments they talk of how Muslims have no rights and as a woman you will have not rights. Using terms of “is that what you want” etc. So many examples in their very own comments so little time to highlight. At any rate definitions are clear and even more clear is the language such individuals use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia)

Funnier still is they try to argue something that was never being argued. For example this idea that “islamic states are taking sympathetic towards islamic extremism”. Who said they were or were not for that matter? It’s called deflection, but I guess islamophobes may call it a point. Another deflection is the idea of christian extremist are not torturing the west. Who said they were or were not again for that matter? I thought the topic was that they do plenty not that they do plenty to eveyone but the U.S. Even that is a well produced lie, but an Islamophobe does not know the difference. Anything to put that fear of Islam into others I suppose.

The funnier part is trying to correlate the idea that if the FBI ignored Christian terrorist then the threat would increase. The problem with that is no one is arguing they “ignore” them so much as sweep them under the rug. The acts are solidified yet most people are still lead to believe they are some random crazy individual. Though with research that is not the case.

Considering Islamic terrorist are Foreign (according to the FBI) then why would they make our domestic list? Not to mention the FBI does not have a domestic list in place for any group to make it. So such questions seem to be ridiculous in nature and is a clear sign that the FBI has done a good job at sweeping. I would expect people to be more curious about the lack of Domestic Terrorist list. For example I know that Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) is a terrrorist organization according to FBI (http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm), but I when click the link for domestic terrorism I get a paragraph of what is considered domestic terrorism. No group names. No designated date. No details. Hmmm….Are the names of this group not as important as the names of the Muslim terrorist? At the rate of things cops might need to be on there soon.

Isn’t it interesting how people claim you are xyz yet parrot any and every word you say to make themselves seem smarter or wiser. Oh well if the monkey leaves no circus, but information can resume.

At any rate islamophobia and the suffers from in generally only view through a single lens. It is not something to be helped when the U.S, chooses to put focus on certain individuals as “terrorist”. American media plays a major role in this and it would not surprise me if the majority of Americans are indeed suffering from islamophobia. Though truth is America has always viewed Christian religion as a sign of good and ignored the bad that can and has been produced from it.

If I take into account Hitler then we can see that most Americans love to say “He was not Christain” as a means to dismiss that he did practice according to his whim (not unlike most Americans). I have to wonder if he believe that Whites were the good race and based his racial ideas on a religious basis? I think to look at Christian terrorist would mean to really look at the fabric of the U.S.A

At any rate I am sure if we removed the idea of war and looked at the death tolls for each group then it is very likely that the Amount of deaths done by Christians will sky rocket. I would not even be surprised if the amount is even amount the two either.

When one is preaching fear of said religion then they are not being cautious. I could pick several examples of this and the best most islamophobes can say is being cautious. This is similar to white folks that pull blacks crimes states and state they are being cautious. Sad but true.

It is so amazing how islamophobes argue things that was never said. I would be amazed if one can point out where anyone said Muslim extremist was not a problem (Any extremist is a problem) ? In between all that fear talk they slide this in. I wonder how many intellectual dishonest statements I can count from islamophobes. SB was a master at this and willfully obtuse no less.

being cautious of islamic extremism is not preaching fear, it’s a very rational response to how islamic extremists behave & the chaos that they cause.

coordinating collectively against them is the right thing for societies to do, it’s in everyone’s best interest.

i don’t think christians are more violent than muslims, or vice versa. but islamic states deal with extremist terrorist groups way more than western nations do, it seems to me that they are the ones who have to handle this.

once islamic states stop having such a sympathetic stance towards these loonies we’ll see the problem solve itself. i wish them the best of luck because it’s not like the USA is invincible to this sort of thing. what affects the middle east affects us too.

Comments such as the one’s below are not cautious comments but appeal to fear comments:

“if islamic powers managed to take over the united states you would say goodbye to our religious freedom among many other freedoms. they wouldn’t allow christians to carry on in their faith. it would be death to the infidels.”

Even comments saying you will have no rights etc under islam is a fear tactic and not one of caution. As a women I have had islamophobes tell me what I will not get under the law in efforts to scare me into agreeing.

These comments are used to impose fear of Muslims. Seeing as similar comments range on for several posts it is preaching on the part of said individuals. Of course individuals will argue it is true and prance out confirmation bias articles as well as use intellectual dishonesty, but it does not change that these type statements are at the heart of any islamophobes tactics. Heck SB even denied christian’s attacking Muslims in the US so not much of truth can be expected.

& i will stand behind this statement all day:
“
if islamic powers managed to take over the united states you would say goodbye to our religious freedom among many other freedoms. they wouldn’t allow christians to carry on in their faith. it would be death to the infidels.”

See what happens when a person thinks every comment is centered around them. Not only do they become paranoid, but they pick out a comment in efforts to accuse a person of putting words in their mouth….. all the while not realizing the person never said it was them.

At any rate islamophobes are free to stand by what they choose but they really need to realize that it does not magically make them right or exonerate them from preaching fear. Even if they provide a source behind that fear (confirmation bias). Especially when said source is another man’s opinion article. LOL!!!

The favorite and most overused ad hominem attack is to call someone a “racist” or in this case “islamophobic.”

i’ve made very clear points & cited sources to back up why i believe the way i do on this particular topic.

all i see here from you know who is a refusal to engage in civil debate, and petty petty dismissal. but that’s to be expected from a goal post switching, cherry picking derailer who has just proven her own intellectual dishonesty & lack of credibility.

nothing that has been stated here reduces any of the claims i’ve made, good night!

They’ve both had their share of violence but the numbers put “Christian nations” over the edge.

Now I want to make a little rant about religion and our relation to it but it feels impossible to start without typing more than I’d really want to (and I’m a bit pressed for time right now). I guess I’ll be back.

Intellectual dishonesty does not mean someone says they are not talking to me and I believe they are so they are intellectually dishonest. The post has had quite a few of Islamophobia and all with the same tactics.

Preaching would require more than a short sentence and me going through several post to point it out. As such it has become painfully obvious who the joke is.

At any rate, no one can blame anyone else for not knowing the definition of words used. Someone once said that the worst thing a person can do is use a word proudly and use it wrong. I don’t know about worse, but it sure is sad. Even sadder when they are offered a chance to learn and are too thick-headed to do so. *shrug*

Though the Islamophobia movement is dangerous, especially for Muslim Americans. I read a study (not sure if I posted it) that showed Muslim American as very patriotic. This contrary to a statement made by an islamophobe that Muslim Americans hate America.

it’s dangerous to take advice or even listen to those who are intellectually dishonest. especially if they are self-admitted liars who have proven their lack of credibility & common sense time & time again.

even if you take reasonable positions on islamic extremism they will dismiss you as islamophobic & instead of engaging in civil debate they will use insults to derail the discussion.

these goal post switching cherry pickers will misquote you to frame you, they will use ad hominems to derail you, they will do anything but engage in a rational discussion. & this is because they don’t have a leg to stand on.

proceed with caution with people like these, especially if you can detect they are ideologically opposed to you in almost every way. you have been warned.

ROFL!!! Comments of a proven islamophobe suffering from paranoia who doesn’t even know what intellectually dishonest means all the while throwing in a slew of ad hominems because of his/her hurt feelings.

Absolutely classic. Even more so than the fact that he repeats words others use to make himself sound smarter. PMSL

I was not going to bother to give you any attention, but I think why not. You are free to respond as I won’t ask abagond to say otherwise.

You call yourself responding to people to dispute them, but sadly you just never do. You just end up circling back to your point and hammering in your points. I am not sure what exactly that is called, but it is not a debate. Because you only really end up trying to bring focus to what you believe and taking focus away from the fact that you never disputed what a person claimed. I doubt you even realize what a person claimed half the time and because you change points so often it is common for people to even forget what you are trying to argue. So let’s now address some of your projection here.

1. You love to say how I lost credibility, but the reality is you have. Not just with your rapid lose of temper but your constant need to engage in confirmation bias or inability to research things to the fullest.

2. the constantly accusing me of derailing the discussion, but If I am throwing a comment out and you are responding to it then I am not derailing the discussion. The discussion stands on what I put out and if you decided to go on your own tagent about other points (which you regularly do) then you are the actual derailer.

3. Accusing me of goal post moving. The posts never move. You are actually the one that regularly seeks to change things to your points. As proven by the comment you chose to quote twice. You sought to change it into what you wanted to. That is not how a debate works dear unless you are seeking to be intellectually dishonest.

4. Cherry picking. All the links and comments you provided were nothing more than cherry picking. Something you do regularly and it shows in many of your comments.

5. I never misquoted you as I never said the comment was yours to begin with. Please feel free to point out any misquote and please feel free to point out where I said it was you. It will only display your paranoia or it will display that your responses here where nothing more than responses to me so you assumed I was indeed responding to you. *shrugs*

6. “use ad hominems to derail you”—Show me an ad hominem and not simple name calling. As I stated before you can not have this if a person is not debating you let alone not even talking to you.

“they will do anything but engage in a rational discussion. & this is because they don’t have a leg to stand on.”—-I gave you an opportunity for a civil debate before you started to call me names and at that point I decided that any response to you was not worth it because you can’t control your temper. You may have forgotten that to paint yourself as a victim, but this link will redirect you and anyone who wises to view it. I no longer choose to take you seriously. You are just not worth it. Your delusions are absolutely unbelievable.. smh

throughout this entire discussion you have labelled me an islamaphobe & you have used quotes to support your assessment. you’ve also knowingly attributed quotes to me only to turn around and ask “-Where did I say you said that?”

& statements like “you can’t debate someone when you are not even talking to them” are not only dismissive but makes it appear as if your comments aren’t at all directed at me. but you & i both know your rants on islamaphobia are most definitely directed at me.

you even sprinkle in quotes from other people & indirectly attribute them to me. this is behavior you would expect from a self-admitted liar who has no legs to stand on because they have lost a debate they aren’t even participating in. LOL!

you know exactly what you are doing, you are being intellectually dishonest.

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion.

I agree with your statement, Abagond, but I think it’s also worth mentioning that it’s incorrect to discredit or credit evidence based simply based on its source (I think you are usually good on this front).

“throughout this entire discussion you have labelled me an islamaphobe & you have used quotes to support your assessment. you’ve also knowingly attributed quotes to me only to turn around and ask “-Where did I say you said that?””—Half the time I am not even talking to you, so really you need help if you believe every comment I made was about you or directed towards you. Just because you decided to respond out of this belief that it is about you tells me that it either applies to you and you are offended or you are just so darn paranoid that you can’t help it. In comments where a quote of yours is used does not mean every quote or statement in that comment is directed at you and only you. I said SB quite often in many quotes, but you ignored that. Do you know why that is? Do you know why you ignored SB in those comments?

“but you & i both know your rants on islamaphobia are most definitely directed at me.”—-You believe that and that likely is because you believe everything I say no matter what post is centered around you. Do you require a paragraph for you to realize what the purpose of those quotes were actually meant to expose or can this be something you can figure out yourself once you stop viewing everything is about you?

“you even sprinkle in quotes from other people & indirectly attribute them to me. “—I never attributed them to you. You attributed them to you. Are you now claiming to be a mind reader?

“Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion.”—Stock definition that seems to apply to you. http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html

As you go through feel free to project more of your inadequacies on me. It is amusing. I will go back to providing information and ignoring you. :)

In December 2014, Jasser claimed that the “majority” of U.S. Muslims “hates America.”

“Jasser is quoted in the Jewish Exponent saying, “The bigger threat is the quiet majority [of American Muslims] that hates America, that doesn’t feel a bond to this country, would be horrified if their kids became military officers, and don’t feel an affinity for America.”

This is contradictory to “A 2011 Gallup survey, titled “Muslim Americans: Faith, Freedom, and the Future,” indicated that 69 percent of American Muslims “identify strongly” with the United States.”

Most islamophobes will simply ignore information to fuel their own agenda such as this one did. What makes one believe that a certain faith means they have hate for another country or religion? It is very naive thinking

^^^ It won’t make much of a difference because the moment I say something you will think it is about you. You simply can’t ignore me because you are obsessed with my every word. Almost as bad as thwack except he spread the psycho. smh :)

“I could spend all day listing more of the same. And that’s using the narrowest definition possible of “terrorism”—i.e., excluding any state-sponsored terrorist acts. We’re currently at various forms of war in five different Muslim countries, so it’s not surprising that some of the violence directed at us is from Muslims. But to claim that “100 percent of attempted terrorist attacks on the U.S. (and [other than Spain], terrorists attacks on all Western nations)” since 1995 are by “people claiming to act in the name of Islam” is so blatantly, demonstrably, obviously false that you really have to wonder about a person who would utter such a thing. And while most don’t veer quite as deep into the falsehood department as Weiss did, one would get the sense from listening to our standard political discourse that “Terrorism” and “Islamic-inspired Terrorism” are synonymous. It’s the kind of myth-based demonization that is as familiar as it is false, dangerous and repugnant.”–Glenn Greenwald.

I think this really sums up islamophobes. You have those that are extreme, but just because one is a little less extreme and mild does not make them less or not an islamophobe. I wager many have no real clue they are or what they are doing.

For the sake of clarity, Islamophobia is a term for prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam, Muslims, or of ethnic groups perceived to be Muslim.

holding irrational fears or prejudice is not good, obviously.

being cautious of societies that are sympathetic towards extremist Islamic groups however is perfectly reasonable & in our best interest.

so let us not throw caution to the wind. we have every reason to be cautious of Islamic states like Iran, Yemen, & Syria. they are ideologically opposed to us entirely, and they certainly aren’t our allies.

The biggest islamophobes are usually the loudest to cry. AS the old saying goes “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

Presenting the definition of words repeatedly does little to change the proof that is ever evident in the pudding. I am sure Weiss did not see or think his comments were islamophobic in nature, but that was precisely the natures of them. Atleast he was man enough to apologize.

“I stupidly broke one of my own writing rules there: Do not use an absolute unless you are absolutely, positively certain beyond any and all doubt. As sure as you use the words “never” or “always,” or “100 percent” someone will provide an exception. Glenn Greenwald on Salon.com provides several. I could quibble with some of his list or engage in some rhetorical dance about the definition of terrorism or try a numbers game about whether I was almost right or not. But the truth is, mine was a needless and incorrect reach that was not necessary to make my point. Which is that there are many more Muslims who oppose terror compared to the relatively few, very dangerous people who would use that faith to justify the murder of innocents. And it behooves us to do what we can to appreciate when those in the larger group do what they can to shut down the violence in spite of the potential consequences to themselves. I will surely make other mistakes down the road, but I will probably not repeat this one any time soon”

Personally I find that the U.S. inserting itself in people’s country has resulted in nothing more than them fighting back. From what I found quite a few seem to just be pushing back. It makes me wonder if there are more groups preparing for push back int he U.S. besides the designated “terrorist” groups. So many groups at that. When people have nothing to lose they will do anything.

DISCLAIMER: not all muslims are alike, not christians are alike. but for the sake of this thread’s topic i will say i don’t think christians are more violent than muslims.

Then turn around and post several links showing the culture of Muslims. It really just highlights the true nature of their mindset or islamophobia as it is called. Unfortunately that part went over said individuals head in his efforts to assert “facts”. Another situation where no one disputed his links, but pointed out a pattern in characteristics. I would like to see said individual point out where I said it was not true. As my claim is they are both just as bad.

I forgot to add C) going on and on about derailing when nothing is being derailed. More projection or just running out of names to call. ;)

In other news I found this blog by Cory Doctorow. He could have been more thorough, imo, but he did manage to point out somethings that have been stated previously. Things like this are not of interest to the U.S. or U.K. and I think it has much to do with what Abagond pointed out in his other posts. America has no moral high ground but continuously seeks to appear as if they have. Everyone else is the boogie man. If America had been founded on Islamic faith I have reason to believe the U.S. would similarly protect it and ignore attacks of Islam nature, but because it was founded on Christian faith the opposite is true. I think I will do more research on christian attacks as well as islamic to further determine if the root cause of the attacks from them have to do with Western interference when many just want to be left alone. If the cause is centered on western interference rather than a religious one from most if not all of them then the question becomes…Is the U.S. to blame for the Muslim attacks against them? Is it fair to say that the U.S. interference is putting their people in danger?

now the list books i posted do examine the extremism that exists within their culture today. but they don’t make blanket judgment of all Muslims. they certainly don’t try to prove muslims are more violent than christians.

they simply take a much closer look at islamic extremism to get a better understanding of it.

As I stated before it is best that you not project your own inadequacies on me. You have several post of you mistaking facts for opinions and several more of you returning to clarify. In many cases you ignore facts and continue to hammer in your point or opinion.

You regularly jump to hasty conclusions, so are you going to apologize for several posts above of you doing such? I think not.

“Commentaries on muslim culture at all.”—I never said they were commentaries, but it also appear you don’t read your links. Even more proof of what I said about your bias.

I know good and well we are not going to have to go through the definition of commentaries vs the definition of links.

“you just said i postied links on the culture of the Muslims, which i didn’t.”—-You do realize that islamic states are area of Muslim communities right? Not simply ISIS as some might believe. Your links are pretty much reporters and possibly other reports of what these people say think and believe in those areas. How they are expected to act and behave in those areas. The hatred these people have for others in those areas. So yes my naive dear individual you have posted several links specifically aim at providing information on the culture (which I hope like heck I don’t have to define) of these people. Yet oddly for people so deadly it amazes me one man actual went to said area and lived, but that is another story.

Anything else require thorough explanation before I either ignore you or call it a night?

“boingboing.net is a very reliable source of information i’m sure….”—Newsflash. It was not presented as some reliable source of facts. You know some people actual present links that do not serve that purpose but rather are interested in what the person has to say. I found what he said interesting and shared. Simple as that.

Did some research on Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, and Menahem Milson. All of them are islomaphobes. In “Reform vs. Islamism in the Arab World Today” Milson states “The terms “extremist Islam,” “militant Islam,” “radical Islam,” and “Islamism” are synonymous.” I will have to read up on the others to determine if there is any islamophobic innuendo.

No one is saying your sources are not credible and the fact that you are repeating this says a certain something about whether a closer look should be taken to determine if they really are. I am well aware they report on areas they choose to go to or are assigned to, but you do realize that you are choosing articles specifically based on how bad it make Muslims look. You have yet to present one viewing the other side of Muslims. As such you are engaging in confirmation bias. Seeking sources that support your own belief.

“the news links i posted are about events & facts not opinions or culture.”—I never said the links or events were an opinion, but yet again you’re constant need to repeat this tells me that they need a closer look to determine how much of an opinion really lies within. At any rate one of your very posts has pictures of the proper way to pray so to say it is not talking about culture is you not reading the post or you simply being blind.

Of the others that I found David Bukay, Andrew Bostom, and David Horowitz are actually islamophobic. In Many of their articles they try to correlate the Muslim religion with being violent. Some of the others do not have enough information to truly determine if they are or are not.

Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Menahem Milson, David Bukay, Andrew Bostom, and David Horowitz are noted islamophobes that have surprisingly written quite a few pieces that people swear by. I have heard people say they are not islamophobes (via some blog), but have notably not read enough of their work to realize they do not see a difference between Muslim culture and Muslim extremist. They are viewed the same. This is why people have to pay close attention to what they read these days. One could be supporting a racist and not have a clue. This is especially true if one holds some of their views to be true, then they become blinded to the hidden message or agenda.

“they do not see a difference between Muslim culture and Muslim extremist. They are viewed the same.”

just because the authors are taking a close look at muslim extremism does not mean they believe mulsim extremism & muslim culture are one & the same.

do you just make this stuff up as you go?

i don’t think christians are more violent than muslims (or vice versa) & neither do these guys. they are just putting muslim extremism under a microscope, but those books aren’t commentaries on muslim culture as a whole, just look at the titles, you don’t even have to read the books to figure that out.

there’s a lot of books on christian extremism too, & i assure you the authors aren’t making blanket statements on christian culture as a whole.

muslim extremism is worth studying too. we need to deconstruct it & figure out how to combat it, because it’s a way more disruptive force to the modern world than christian extremism, that’s for sure.

but you are hammering your opinion in quite well too, it goes both ways. your opinion is not a fact.

your opinion is their books claim muslim extremism & muslim culture are one & the same, this opinion is misinformed & that’s a fact.

perhaps you should actually read a book before you form an opinion on it?

“Another post not directed at you yet same Ole need of attention from you.”

another example of intellectual dishonesty from you, not surprised. your post was directed at the sources i listed, so indirectly it was directed at me. my opinion is that you’ve never read anything on that list or even any article that cited them as sources so…carry on with your ignorance please. :)

“it is obvious you don’t care what i think, no doubt about that.”—Apparently it is not because every post you directed at me as a “I think” or “I don’t believe” paragraph. Now either you are in denial or disbelief.

“but you are hammering your opinion in quite well too, it goes both ways.”—The difference here is I am simply providing information I found where as you are directly trying to tell me your opinion. That is because you still have this deluded idea anything I say has to do with what you have to say. You care way more about my every word than I really care about yours. Seems to be another issue of yours your are in denial of.

“perhaps you should actually read a book before you form an opinion on it?”—-I read several books, so forming an opinion on them is easy. Perhaps you were referring to reading a book on the men you listed. Well a better opinion can be formed on them in general by reading more than one of their pieces of work (you should try it). As such from other works they have written I have determined they are islamophobes. I even went so far as to quote something from one of the gentlemen above. You deciding to ignore that piece of information only solidifies your willfully obtuse nature. AS such it is really pointless to say much of anything to you because it will all go right over your head. See abagonds post of willfully obtuse for further reference on your very nature.

“another example of intellectual dishonesty from you, not surprised..”—You have no real clue what intellectual dishonesty is beyond the fact that I presented it and you want to sound learned. As such you repeating it like the single-minded parrot you are will not make me any more or less intellectual dishonest because you say so. At any rate Abagond actual stated he was not sure how many others were actually islamophobe other than the two he knew of. I took it upon myself to provide information to point out others. I also let him know of the ones I was not sure about. As to reading the books you listed, please review my response above.

I think the only level of ignorance being displayed here is by you no matter how much you want to deny it. It is pure ignorance to be mad over my opinion. It is ignorance and down right paranoia to think every thing is about you. It is ignorance to think your confirmation bias some how proves you are right. It is ignorance that keeps you obsessed with me and my words. Perhaps the truth hurts, but not my monkey…..not my circus.

“According to the FBI, only 6% of the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 were carried out by Muslim extremists.”—So the real question is that knowing that other extremist have carried out more attacks on U.S. soil then why is the issue still Muslim extremists? Jews carried out a percent more and they are not even on the radar of fear.

“no you are providing opinion, and i guess some links to blogs & stuff lol”–Providing information does not require a stipulation that it is “fact” or opinion. It is just providing information. Perhaps if you knew the difference then you will not be up in arms about everything I say.

At any rate I only provided one blog source based on the reason I stated above. My source are just as credible and for you to say not is just really you using again your willfully obtuse nature and intellectual dishonesty. As you have yet to find a way to discredit anything I have used other than saying “no it’s not”. I on the other hand have pointed to 6 of your authors being islamophobes with sources.

At the very least no one is talking to you at all and you are trying to create a debate out of your paranoia. A debate you lost a long time ago. You just refuse to let go.

“published books on islamic extremism which foolishly believe are commentaries on all islamic culture.”—In your free time please point to my post where I said the books you published were on culture.

As to your links providing information on culture they do. I fear someone does not know the definition of culture. Oh dear me. Should I define it for you and provide the very link that shows this culture?

Reading more into some of the known islamophobes I have found that they feel the Muslims should change their ways to be more acceptable in modern times. An example used is slavery in the majority of Muslims cities. The problem I see with this is that it overlooks slavery in majority Christian areas. The very things that Muslims are chastised for seem to be the very things that Christians, not sure about Jews, practice. Even if in secret.

“In his article “Islam for the Perplexed,” Fitzgerald supported U.S. government and private persecution of Muslims:

“The second important goal is to stop all Muslim migration to Muslim lands, to the U.S., to Canada, to Western Europe. For obvious reasons, Muslims do not migrate to Eastern Europe and Russia. If possible, not only should migration be stopped, but life can be made more difficult, if not by the government, then by private individuals, so that Muslims will be discouraged from remaining.”

smh. So you basically get caught in another straw man/ lie argument and you try to use your failed logic to wiggle out of it? Ok.

For starters I never said I read any of their books, but there other published works. I said this for several posts now so you trying to take a quote from what I found from their other sources I read is pure dishonesty on your part. There is a fallacy for that, but I just can’t seem to find the name of it at the very moment. I will provide the link for easy viewing of your continued dishonesty.

“like boingboing.com or any number of the extremist blogs you visit?”—I actually don’t visit extremist blogs, but one blog does not equal “blogs.” ;)

“don’t make me laugh. you’ve proven yourself to be entirely uncredible.”—Based on the straw men arguments, outright lies, fallacies, and other levels of intellectual dishonesty in many of your responses I would say only a true fool would find you credible. The projecting from you is hilarious.

You may have lost the argument, but you have successfully shown the type of person you are. Always a pleasure. :)

“i have set up no straw man argument at all, i simply question your ignorant statements and flimsy sources, there’s no straw man here…perhaps learn what a straw man is?”—Actually here is another lie. You never questioned my sources you basically outright said they were not credible. Based on absolutely nothing other than one being a blog. Likely the other reason being that you don’t agree with them. Now because you may be unfamiliar with your tactics I decided to define it with examples.

A straw man is “an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.” You misrepresented my claim in this quote “your opinion is their books claim muslim extremism & muslim culture are one & the same, this opinion is misinformed & that’s a fact.” You actually continue to do so because I never made a claim once dealing with the books at all. I only pointed out the islamophobes based on other works

“i never said you said you read any of those books, of course you didn’t, in fact i actually said i’d wager you didn’t…remember that? probably not.”—Nice try, but you got caught. You tried to claim my reasoning/logic.

“i have lost no argument as you have already admitted yourself you aren’t even addressing me…do you remember saying that? probably not.”—-I stopped addressing when you lost. Duh. Several posts up. :)

“i’m just going to get back to reporting the daily news if you don’t mind. i’m not trying to sweep islamic extremism under the rug like you are.”—-Another one of those straw man arguments.

And this is why you don’t argue with the willfully obtuse. They stay in denial.

“You misrepresented my claim in this quote “your opinion is their books claim muslim extremism & muslim culture are one & the same, this opinion is misinformed & that’s a fact.” You actually continue to do so because I never made a claim once dealing with the books at all.”

what????? you got to be kidding me :)

“Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Menahem Milson, David Bukay, Andrew Bostom, and David Horowitz are noted islamophobes that have surprisingly written quite a few pieces that people swear by. I have heard people say they are not islamophobes (via some blog), but have notably not read enough of their work to realize they do not see a difference between Muslim culture and Muslim extremist. They are viewed the same.”

Yet you still can not point to where I directly and clearly stated their ” books claim muslim extremism & muslim culture are one & the same.” Emphasis on BOOKS. Not in that paragraph or anywhere else on this board. Only thing you have is YOUR reasoning (one you are trying to claim is mine). That my dear is all pure bread straw man.

Are you trying to contend that they have not writing other works? Are you saying their books are the only ones to be viewed in forming an opinion about the 6 authors?

At any rate it is really one of many that you have used and pointing them out is just going to be you in this same ole denial. *shrugs*

In the words of Abagond “no amount of facts or reasons, no matter how clearly, calmly and patiently you lay them out, is going to change the minds of the wilfully obtuse. They are too brainwashed. They are too far gone.”

intellectual dishonesty is many different fallacies in one word. When you are someone who has been guilty of 12 of them it is really hard to continue to call others it unless you just are suffering from delusions of grandeur.

The only thing I got from this is Waaa you will not see it my way. You will not agree with me. You are not being fair.

Why would anyone need to reason with a person they are simply having a conversation with? Probably because they are not trying to reason, but trying to force them to view it their way.

I guess that is what happens when people get caught in a lie and using fallacies such as straw men. They swear everyone else is out to win even though they dug their own graves. I just wonder if said person realizes how many straw man arguments he actually used?

“you can’t really follow peoples arguments so you dismiss & derail, among other things”—–You mean the way you dismissed and basically changed the subject on my claim above in the very beginning? It is ok. It is very evident that you project and now lie.

When you employ intellectual dishonest tactics such as double standards or changing subject then you never had an argument that was winnable. You never had one to begin with. This was pointed out above and this is something I will not waste time copying and pasting for the sake of the willfully obtuse. It is not what I think. It is simply what has been proven.

Let me give you a little lesson in very basic logic. It doesn’t matter if you claimed you won because you clearly implied it. since you say i lost my argument then someone must have won it & since the only person discussing this with me is you then….you see we’re i’m going with this? probably not. but let me break it down for you.

team a & team b are arguing. team a claims team b has lost. based on this claim who is the implied winner. get it? if not, sorry, i really am trying here.

“Straw man: debater attacks an argument that is easy to refute but which is also an argument that no one has made in the debate.”

i’d really like to better understand the straw man argument i set up let alone what easy argument i refuted. take your time…

The problem with your logic is implied and an argument made are two different things. You can claim all day what you think I implied but it will never be an actual argument I made. Thus your straw man.

People lose arguments all the time with no “winner” or without someone having to claim “winner”. I did not claim it as my purpose was more information based not win/lose based. You on the other hand made it clear quite often that your purpose was win/lose based. As such pointing out your lose is why you are spazzing now. Besides you don’t really think you can win an argument of logic with you are using fallacies do you?

“i’d really like to better understand the straw man argument i set up let alone what easy argument i refuted”—Here is an example of intellectual dishonesty (I forgot the specific one though). You only chose to have me prove half of the definition of straw man to avoid any proof provided of your straw man. The other end of the definition of straw man is “which is also an argument that no one has made in the debate.” I provided an example for you of you doing just that. If you need further examples of you doing it then just go back to the several other posts that point out your straw man arguments. This thread is not void of your many examples, but I will no longer be copy/paste them for you to lie and deny.

“perhaps you’ll just shrug?”—Of course I will shrug because I am indifferent to you silliness at this point. You are just going in circles. I should SMH as it is pathetic. *shrugs*

At the end of the day you are not breaking anything down for me or teaching me anything. You are doing it all for yourself, because you need to prove you know. You need to solidify you won something here. You need to change my mind. Nothing you do will. I made 3 claims above and you were not able to address any of them short of a fallacy.

Now once again you want me to show you were you messed up or where you lose. To what end? So you can deny again? So you can redirect to your points? Waste my time.

“The problem with your logic is implied and an argument made are two different things. You can claim all day what you think I implied but it will never be an actual argument I made. Thus your straw man.”

“you don’t understand how saying i lost an argument implies that you won?”—-You don’t understand that x does not always equal y. If a person is not black it does not automatically mean they are white. If a person loses it does not automatically mean someone won. It is a fallacy if you beleive it must equal what you say or believe.

“who was i arguing with then?”—For the most part yourself, but at this point you have no idea at what point you lost, how you lost, or what fallacies you used in that argument that cemented your lose. Either way your argument did not withstand. You also do not know my claims to say you disputed them. You focused more on hammering in your point. Hammering your point is not a win for you. What are my claims?

“this is really simple stuff, definitely not brain surgery.”—Apparently it is for you. You are stuck in your ways and your ideas and you apply this to what other people should see and should think.

“but you aren’t looking for an honest conversation, are you?”—Using fallacies is not being honest and you refuse to admit to using them even when they are pointed out to you.

At the end of the day you are just a childish individual who for some odd reason is obsessed with my words. Why do my words bother you so much? I am sure none of my questions will be answered as I have asked you several that you ignored.

At the end of the day….you are simply bothered by me. So allow me to show you how not bothered I am by you.

I see there are a lot ofinsults being heaved back and forth, Oh why doesn’t Agabond censor this? It’s being done by his pet white folks that he loves so much, interesting to see how this site has devolved into mud-slinging B.S.lol.

here’s a few examples of your derailing tactics, some specific some general.

not focusing on the points made but key words like “groups” & “books”

clearly implying something only to turn around & say “i never said…,”

misrepresenting people through quotes & then saying “i never said you said that…,”

i really could go on & on & on.

but know this whoever you are, you don’t bother me at all. talking with you is like comedy to me, i find it very very entertaining. it’s fun to address some of the outlandish ways you like to distract & dismiss people you disagree with.

thanks for “honestly” engaging me in “conversation.” always a good time.

discriminating against muslims in the world is no different than discriminating against blacks. it’s wrong & it needs to stop now.

islamic people are extremely nice, even too a fault. that goes even double for mormons, probably the nicest people on earth. we’re all americans, ideologically we coexist quite well here in the states even though we disagree on many things.

discrimination is wrong, but it’s not wrong to pay close attention to other people & their ideas & attitudes towards us. in fact my advice to everyone is pay close attention, it will serve you well.

Liam Neeson is actually considering converting to Islam following his recent visit to Istanbul. Whites , who are not “Christians” by any stretch of the imagination, demonize and criminalize any group of people who r a direct threat to their white supremacist doctrines. Whites FEAR Islam, because Islam is the only group that isn;t kow towing to global white supremacy and the dictates of the west.

Please take a stadium full of seats. The examples you provided are not derailing. Derailing is going off topic period. On top of that only you tried to focus the conversation on “Groups” as the claim you attempted to dispute was not specifically focused on groups, but Islamic extremist period. Should I provide the link as you try to go on and on about how my source did not meet the bar because it did not compare as a result of me not showing groups.

As to the books portion of the argument, you made a claim I said something about your books that was a false claim. You lied dude. The gig is up.

“clearly implying something only to turn around & say “i never said…,””—Implying and saying are two different things and everything I supposedly implied is based on what you believe I mean. Not derailing, but your failed logic.

“misrepresenting people through quotes & then saying “i never said you said that…”—This is intellectual dishonesty on your part. Not derailing. I never said the quote was yours and it was one of many comments not even directed at you, but using examples of islamophobes. You are one, but not the only one as I did mention Sb in that very comment I believe.

“i really could go on & on & on.”—Please do.

“but know this whoever you are, you don’t bother me at all. talking with you is like comedy to me, i find it very very entertaining.”—This would hold truth if you did not flood the board with comments directed at me even when I am not talking to you. Not to mention the refusal to no longer address me even when asked. So yeah proof is in the pudding. ;)

Fyi please use google to find proper examples and definitions of derailing.

“Whites FEAR Islam, because Islam is the only group that isn;t kow towing to global white supremacy and the dictates of the west.”—You make an interesting point as I was pondering on the real fear of Islam. Especially considering that stats seem to show other extremist groups as more of a threat.

Most of what I read seems to point to this idea from islamophobes that they want Muslims to change or curve their doctrine to assimilate into modern society. In the same way other religions did. hmm….

“remember, being cautious about islamic extremism is not islamophobia.”—-I know that, but that does not change that you are still an islamophobe and frankly this is not the only thread you have happily displayed it.

At this point I am going to have to place you back on mental ignore because I can only deal with a persons lies, intellectual dishonesty, and fallacy arguments for so long.

“thanks for “honestly” engaging me in “conversation.” always a good time.”—You don’t know what honesty is which is why you avoid the questions. You avoid them and try to focus or redirect me to focusing on defending myself from the many names you wish to call me.

“Avoiding/Ignoring the question or “ . . . and let’s not forget about . . .” Anybody who refuses to admit that their argument is weak in an area and, worse still, avoids answering difficult questions in that area is being intellectually dishonest. If they don’t ignore the question, these people are easily recognised from their efforts to change the subject.”

While I am not surprised by the Mormon outlook on Muslims, I can say I am a bit disappointed. The christian teachings really seem to fall short on those that are different. Considering the persecution that Mormon’s experienced one would think they would know better than to exert the same amount of religious persecution to another.

Expecting Muslim Americans to carry to burden because of Muslim extremist is the same as expecting Mormons to carry the burden of the polygamist branch of Mormons.

The theme in his works along with many others is Muslims must fit an acceptable profile. Just like the acceptable black. A laundry list of things you must do to become less scary and they still may not work.

“Many Muslims themselves have bought into this dichotomy, if only to distance themselves from the so-called radicals and extremists—to assure paranoid non-Muslims, in other words, “I’m not that kind of Muslim.”

On random thought, When is the United States going to up it’s stance on domestic terrorism. Other countries have better and more detailed protocols in place for identifying terrorist/extremist organizations. While the US is putting green movements as a criteria of being an extremist/terrorist.

They still have no detailed list in place to showcase the names, designation, or origin of the supposed domestic extremist they have tracked.

Other independent organizations have tracked other extremist groups in place that were not originally known. Though the fact still remains that there is an unwillingness to view and deal with Christian extremist in the same light as Muslim extremist are viewed. Especially in Christian countries.

Want to know what is childish? Calling a person names and harassing someone just because they will not agree with your logic. Even though said person respectfully asked to not addresses them 4 times total. and had to resort to asking the blog owner to ask said person to stop. Now that is creepy as well as childish. Though talking to comments not directed at them may actually top that cake.

“you live in a fantasy world of your own.”—I live in a fantasy world yet I can provided links to the direct comment of you harassing me after I asked you respectfully to no longer address me? This board is riddled with you convinced several comments are addressing you when they are not. How about you just leave me alone? Is that really hard?

“The mainstream news media have been remarkably slow when it comes to zeroing in on the pervasive reality of hate-based Christian extremism. It is easier, after all, to blame the un-American other. In 2012, six Sikhs were killed and three wounded in Milwaukee by Wade Michael Page, a neo-Nazi skinhead. The “dangerous other” isn’t always Muslim or Muslim-looking. The Millers affixed a swastika to the body of one of the two police officers they killed.” —-Completely agree with this from the link.

In other news I was trying to find where Muslim extremist have attacked America other than 9/11. There appears to be few specific attacks. The biggest victims seem to be in other countries, but the media uses this to fuel the fire of Islamic fear and hate. Then again what can you expect from a media that also refuses to highlight Americans christian extremist and other extremist such as anti-muslim extremist groups. *sign*

Depends on what you view as Christianity- If you think of Christians based on what pop media tells you and pop views then yes it seems they are violent but there are a lot of little groups that aren’t for instance the Quakers had peaceful relationships with a lot of the Natives and were known to give them food instead of beating them up and trade happened.

Believe it or not it was the British that roped American Natives into preforming raids on Colonists who refused to join the system but then again a lot of the American Natives are not really native either so there.

The reason being is because American society holds Muslims to a different standard than Christians. The war on terror really is just the war on Muslims. Take for example the Kansas city attacks. A lot is not being said about it. Mainly because it does not fit the Islamic jihad stereotype. The media will likely paint it as the lone wolf attacks. With that media lack of coverage, we could have a full blown army in the shadows and America would not know it or care.

Before 9/11 America society had not been attacked by Muslim extremist. None even today. Victims of attacks overseas may have a case but America and it’s community of islamophobes don’t have one. This is precisely where the fear tactic seems to come into play.

^^^ not really news here specifically, more of a discussion. interesting.”

That was written by someone who works for a think tank supported by the British war machine. Fox News does the very same thing with its “retired generals” who, they never tell you, work for military contractors. They also appeal to Islamophobia. Hmm, I wonder why.

I just finished reading this article and it is very interesting how the minds of the big players of al-Qaida actually worked. At the end of the day it really boils down to attacks based not on religion or Christians, but an attack on the political powers. Thus being extremist that practice Islam.

Where islamophobia comes into play is that many islamophobes actually view the attacks as a religious take over even though most terrorist groups states their goals and missions to be destruction of political powers. This is not to say they are not terrorist none the less, but the need to correlate their religion with their act causes as sense of fear. It promotes the fear that those that practice Islam will or can turn into a terrorist. Many media islamophobes argue that they are just criticizing bad Muslims, but ignore the very underlining message in what they are saying. A message that sends out to many people the idea that a Muslim is a terrorist until proven otherwise.

In a video I watched an islamophobe made the argument of “supposedly moderate terrorist.” She was very much blind to the words she has used. Words which insinuate that being a moderate Muslim is a lie. When question about it her response was that she was just letting people know about Muslims terrorist. In her argument she goes on to say that she knows what they think and believe. She was defended by other who tried to argue she was not an islamophobe because she helped Muslims. As one blogger put it….that is equal to the “I have black friends” argument.

On top of that I think America exaggerates any “harm” others do to it. An Attack on America is equal to excuse to take over country and bomb you several times and Most Americans will see it as justified. What they won’t see is the events that lead up to the attack. I think the Samatha Power post illustrates this blindness quite well. So does white lens in a sense.

some people actively use Islamophobia to intimidate critics of Islam. liberal inquisitors love to throw the word around & label people Islamophobes simply because they bring up relevant critiques against the institution of Islam..

a phobia is an irrational fear, period.

but it’s not irrational to have fears about an ideology that can advocate the murder of its apostates & has shown countless examples of extremist behavior within it’s ranks.

but many liberals will continue to label those who feel this way as islamophobic to silence all rational discussion, and this is to be expected.

This is something I find odd. One of the islamophobes on a media panel quoted 15 to 25% of Muslims being extremist, but I have not been able to find those numbers anywhere. I have to wonder if they even exist, but if they are a lie the media will not apologize for it.

This actually reminds me of the guy I called racist. He tried to explain how he was not racist. Then he tried to claim blacks think everything is racist. Then he tried to explain his black friends. Then he got angry and called names. Same with islamophobes.

People who are not islamophobic have no need to be mad or upset at a person using the term to describe a group of people who regularly use news outlets to promote fear and hate of Muslims to the masses. That Brigitte lady does it all the time with no remorse. I guess in her mind she is helping.

Whites truly suffer from a mental disease. One that spreads to certain people of color.

How did Mary put it?….”Throw it out there and a hit dog will holler.” hmm….smh….*shrug*

Do you know the name of the post or do you have a post that talks on how whites think they know better than you do? I think the massive illustration of how one becomes the dumb crazy negro because they are not pacifying the fragile white male ego has prompted me to learn more.

Looks like the term islamophobe has no political drawn line. Bill Maher can successfully take his place among the growing number of islamophobes.

“The FBI study does not include all gun-related violence, which would yield numbers several orders of magnitude higher. In fact, an analysis by Mother Jones of mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 found that in the incidents, in which 530 people were killed, more than 60 percent of the shooters were white males. But we don’t see government efforts aimed at curbing white male violence, or a public backlash against white male gun owners. Rather we are expected to fear “homegrown terrorists” exclusively of the Muslim variety.”—-Something islamophobes refuse to acknowledge.

I understand where this guy, Steven A. Isaacson, is coming from, but I disagree on some key points. I agree that talking about or expose Muslim extremist must be done, but I also think calling out islamophobes must be done also.

Many islamophobes have trouble separating Muslims and extremist. This is what Steven A. Isaacson fails to understand. Like racist islamophobes hide behind certain ideas of thoughts to appear unbiased and if you let them talk long enough they expose their true ideas. Truly listening to the words that some of them say is very telling into their nature. Brigitte Gabriel ( finally ran across her name) gives tons of speeches and in each one she begins with talking about her youth in a war torn area filled with Muslim violence. She rarely if ever distinguishes between extremist and average Muslims. She preys upon the misinformed and those seeking to confirm their fears and bias. I will post more on her later.

Abagond I took it upon myself to post a link to your reading while white post. You had many so I was not sure which one to choose. I figured your resident white guy could learn a thing or two about how reading while white has allowed to skip over a lot of things I said.

This post was modelled on the Black crime argument that racists make on this blog all the time. They take an ordinary phenomenon – crime – and then highlight that done by a particular group, Blacks, as if it were a Black thing.

Ashraf is doing the same thing in this BBC piece. He calls it “Viewpoint: Confrontation key to tackling violent extremism” – yet every single example is violence carried out by Muslims.

He talks about ISIS beheadings of journalists, but not about the US bombing that led to it.

He talks about the massacre at a school in Peshawar, Pakistan, but not about the school in Pakistan that the US bombed.

Why only half the picture?

Instead of, say, seriously examining how US drone policy might increase Islamist extremism, he blames the extremism on a “lust for violence”, ” its inherent ignorance, its absence of humanity and its innate cowardice.” That is demonization, that is propaganda, not a serious attempt at understanding the world.

For some time now my focus has been on Brigitte Gabriel. While loonwatch is not the best source of information, it did give me an idea of the many contradictions she makes in her speeches. Apparently she is an apologist for certain “terrorist” groups, but is not so keen on Muslims. Here are a few of her quotes.

“The difference, my friends, between Israel and the Arab world is the difference between civilization and barbarism. It’s the difference between good and evil [applause]…. this is what we’re witnessing in the Arabic world, They have no SOUL !, they are dead set on killing and destruction. And in the name of something they call “Allah” which is very different from the God we believe….[applause] because our God is the God of love.”

“It’s the duty of all moderate Muslims to speak against the hate, against the Jihad… the people in the West must support the moderates.”

“America and the West are doomed to failure in this war unless they stand up and identify the real enemy: Islam. You hear about Wahabbi and Salafi Islam as the only extreme form of Islam. All the other Muslims, supposedly, are wonderful moderates. Closer to the truth are the pictures of the irrational eruption of violence in reaction to the cartoons of Mohammed printed by a Danish newspaper…derived from one source: authentic Islam.”

“a practising Muslim who goes to mosque every Friday, prays five times a day, and who believes that the Koran is the word of God, and who believes that Mohammed is the perfect man and (four inaudible words) is a radical Muslim.”

As you can see this islamophobe contradicts herself. One minute she speaks on these moderate Musims and how she wants them to speak out against the Muslim extremist and the next she is lumping them all in one boat. I guess she ignores Muslims speaking out about the extremist. Just like certain whites ignore gun violence rallies by blacks.

“i don’t think christians are more violent than muslims or vice versa, i’ve said this many many times throughout this thread.”

Caught in another lie.

“i don’t believe christians are more violent than muslims & i gave my reasons why.”

“i don’t think christians are more violent than muslims. but if there are christian extremist groups roaming the countryside, attacking schools & disrupting society on this level i’d definitely like to know about it.”

“i believe islamic states have more problems when it comes to extremist terrorist groups. i’ve state this quite clearly many times.”—Since it is a matter of a mere misunderstanding then please quote where you have claimed this prior to this very moment.

i’ve said several times i don’t believe christians are more violent than muslims or vice versa. that should sufficiently prove i’m not saying muslims are worse people than christians.

i’ve said that islamic societies have more problems with extremist terrorist groups than western ones. never have i said muslim people are worse in general. i know you have a vested interest in labeling and discrediting me, but come on…

everything i’ve talked about has been related to the threat of extremism. i’ve never made blanket judgments on muslim people, i haven’t said they are more violent, haven’t said they are worse people. (how many times do i have to repeat this?)

1. I did a search on the thread to find where you said “i don’t believe christians are more violent than muslims or vice versa.” What I came up with were the quotes I presented in which I also provide links for easy reference. I went further by quoting in the entirety so the context of the matter van be taken into account.

2. You refuse to show where you claim this even though it seems to have been claimed several times by your account.

So when someone says “i don’t believe christians are more violent than muslims or vice versa.” what it means is christians aren’t more violent than muslims & muslims aren’t more violent than christians.

Yes, I know what vice versa means. I also know how to look for similar language in posts to what you are trying to claim. I am equally verse in knowing when someone is trying to pull the wool over another’s eyes. It is all good. I ain’t mad at you, but I will no longer engage you under those standards.

What you attempted to do was claim that my “supposed” misunderstanding was the reason I glossed over you claiming “i don’t believe christians are more violent than muslims or vice versa”.

You never said it so we have nothing to agree on. I provided my links and will provide again in the end of this response.

Another reason why I know that is not your claim and not your intention to claim was because in the beginning of this debate I made the claim that Muslim extremist and Christian extremist are the same. You did not agree with me but argued with me and provided sources to your claim that they were more violent with captions on your thoughts of how it is an everyday thing. So can you explain to me how you agree with me on such a matter yet your follow ups are you disputing me and you proudly claiming how you disputed my points? I will wait.

“i don’t want anyone assuming i think muslims are more violent than christians or vice versa”—The difference between assuming and truth is this post is flooded with proof.

“you either don’t remember or you are outright lying.”—The problem with this statement is I kindly asked you to direct me to the very post where you made the claim “i don’t believe Christians are more violent than muslims or vice versa” even after I provided my proof.
Your retort is as follows:

“i don’t know why i even did you the favor of explaining myself AGAIN, the burden of proof is on the accuser anyways…”

“if you are going to accuse me of holding this opinion you need proof to back it up.”

“i’ve said several times i don’t believe christians are more violent than muslims or vice versa. that should sufficiently prove i’m not saying muslims are worse people than christians.”

Now seeing as you are now making the claim that I am lying it would actual require you provide proof of such, but I know how this will go because in doing so will expose that you never made the claim to begin with. So if you want to continue to be dishonest then there is certainly nothing else left to say.

i thought Abagond went through and deleted all the posts where i said that exact quote, but i found one that still exists on this thread:

“being cautious of islamic extremism is not preaching fear, it’s a very rational response to how islamic extremists behave & the chaos that they cause.

coordinating collectively against them is the right thing for societies to do, it’s in everyone’s best interest.

i don’t think christians are more violent than muslims, or vice versa. but islamic states deal with extremist terrorist groups way more than western nations do, it seems to me that they are the ones who have to handle this.”

Using Abagond as an scapegoat is a bit rude. He did not start deleting posts until You and I became off topic. Prior to that your posts nor mine were not deleted at all. What you in turn will do is find yourself trying to wiggle out of yet another lie.

Abagond clearly announced when he would delete a comment and why. Did he not? If you made that statement several times (per your words) and he deleted all those statements then that shows you were personally attacking me in all those statements for them to be deleted.

“being cautious of islamic extremism is not preaching fear, it’s a very rational response to how islamic extremists behave & the chaos that they cause.

coordinating collectively against them is the right thing for societies to do, it’s in everyone’s best interest.

i don’t think christians are more violent than muslims, or vice versa. but islamic states deal with extremist terrorist groups way more than western nations do, it seems to me that they are the ones who have to handle this.”

Then I applaud you for finding 1 post that states “i don’t think christians are more violent than muslims, or vice versa.” Several days after I already made the claim that Christians and Muslim extremist are the same. and all in and effort to prove you are not islamophobic. *applause* :)

“i know you desperately want to frame me as someone who thinks muslims are worse people than christians, but i don’t believe that one bit.”—The proof is always in the pudding. “the fact that Christian terrorism so easily swept under the rug should tell you something. Christian terrorism is not a clear & present danger to our society or any society for that matter, it’s easily dismissed because it’s not a major threat.

certain things are impossible to sweep under the rug & cannot be ignored. i could give you a laundry list of examples but a few that come to mind are flying planes into buildings, blowing up marathons, kidnapping people, video taping executions for propaganda, massacring schools, & destabilizing society in general.”

You do realize that 1 quote showing you said something does not mean you have not lied otherwise? It does not make other accusations false. It means you actual need to find proof that those others are not true and that is a bit hard when you own words are being quoted.

I finally checked out the Southern Poverty site and was very surprised that it was more detailed on extremist thanot the FBT could dream of being. Ithe is amazing the number of groups (and growing) that are actually sitting under the government’should nose. So much for that war on terror.

Even more noticeable is Robert Spencer is on the list of anti-Muslim individuals. The idea that he is not Islamophobic is a false one at this point. The worse part is of the other islamophobes/ Anti-Muslim is all of them are in positions that influnch the thought process of the masses. This is where the average Islamophobia gets their talking poibts. These individuals are the very same that talk of criticizing islam, but in reality they are teaching fear and hate.http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles

A “Christian war” is a war motivated by the principles of Christianity, and a “Muslim war” is a war motivated by the principles of Islam. If one or more of a war’s belligerents is a predominantly Christian nation, that is not sufficient to label it a “Christian war”; and if one or more of a war’s belligerents is a predominantly Muslim nation, that is not sufficient to label it a “Muslim war.”

Given that Jesus Christ reportedly said one of the two greatest commandments is “Love your neighbor as yourself,” it is incorrect to call any war a “Christian war.” The fundamental principles of the religion simply don’t support it.

Mohammed and his successors (a.k.a. “caliphs”) personally led many brutal military conquests, so the concept of a “Muslim war” is more feasible. The concept of “holy war” has no counterpart in modern Christianity. While modern Christians regard the Crusades as having been ill-motivated, some modern Muslims desire to restore an Islamic Caliphate. As ISIS is currently demonstrating, the only way to attempt that is by waging war.

According to Speer, Hitler believed that either Japanese religious beliefs or Islam would have been a more suitable religion for the Germans than Christianity, with its “meekness and flabbiness”. Historian John S. Conway states that Hitler was fundamentally opposed to the Christian churches. According to Bullock, Hitler did not believe in God, was anticlerical, and held Christian ethics in contempt because they contravened his preferred view of “survival of the fittest”… Hitler planned to destroy the influence of Christian churches within the Reich. His eventual goal was the total elimination of Christianity. This goal informed Hitler’s movement very early on, but he saw it as inexpedient to express this extreme position publicly. According to Bullock, Hitler wanted to wait until after the war before executing this plan.

So it would seem that calling Hitler “Christian” is both untrue and misleading true.

“Given that Jesus Christ reportedly said one of the two greatest commandments is “Love your neighbor as yourself,” it is incorrect to call any war a “Christian war.” The fundamental principles of the religion simply don’t support it.”—I don’t disagree, but let us not forget that Jesus’s voice is not the only voice of authority in Christianity. We often forget the voice of god found in Old testament. Ignoring the select parts of the religion does not mean the religion never said or believed that at one time. People even use much from the old testament to excuse hatred and violent acts today.

“As ISIS is currently demonstrating, the only way to attempt that is by waging war.”—So here is a question. Because a person practices a religion does that make them a candidate for waging a “holy war”? Is government and political warfare considered “holy wars”? What marks the difference?

“So it would seem that calling Hitler “Christian” is both untrue and misleading true.”—The point of the quote was actually stated to illustrate the misleading nature of both Hitler and the 9/11 terrorist.

Hitler practiced a kind of syncretism. He could be both Catholic and non-Christian in the furtherance of his agenda.

“I do further promise and declare that, notwithstanding, I am dispensed with to assume any religion heretical for the propagation of the Mother Church’s interest; to keep secret and private all her agents’ counsels from time to time, as they entrust me, and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing or circumstances whatever; but to execute all that should be proposed, given in charge, or discovered unto me by you, my Ghostly Father…”

Just as there are tons of Christians who do not see Hitler as a true Christian, so there are tons of Muslims who do not see ISIS or the 9/11 terrorists as true Muslims. Islam does not condone the slaughter of defenceless people.

Jesus was a peacenik, but in the Old Testament God gives a green light to genocide. This was not lost on the Puritans, who also saw themselves as the Chosen Ones in a Promised Land.

Popes gave the green light to several Crusades, like the first one, which seems to have been the bloodiest.

The US, widely seen as a Christian nation, gives the green light to the repeated bombing of civilians in Gaza.

Islam does in fact have a doctrine of holy war, jihad, but the likes of ISIS, al-Qaeda and suicide bombers do not fall under it:

If we count mass slaughter carried out by the followers of either religion, Christians lead hands down, as shown in the post. It is not even close. But Christians are not Christianophobes (a word that does not even exist in my spell checker) because that kind of prejudiced thinking is only applied to out-groups, not to the in-group. The Ashraf piece for the BBC is a good example, showing us only half the picture.

the Christians should lead in your death count since you include the World War’s as Christian wars. you’ve labeled wars Christian simply if they were fought by nations who have Christians living in it, this is misleading.

“A “Christian war” is a war motivated by the principles of Christianity, and a “Muslim war” is a war motivated by the principles of Islam.”

I noticed that IQ test play a big role in the US. Not only among racists, but in the general discussion about education. That is very different from Germany and always baffles me. Does anybody know how important they are in other countries?

Jihad does not apply to what the 9/11 terrorists did any more than Christian principles applied to what Hitler did. That is my point. Calling one sort of violence “Muslim” but not calling the other sort “Christian” is prejudiced thinking, a double standard.

Most Christians understand that their religion does not begin to excuse what Hitler or the conquistadors have done.

Likewise, most Muslims understand that their religion does not begin to excuse what ISIS or al-Qaeda have done.

“Jihad does not apply to what the 9/11 terrorists did any more than Christian principles applied to what Hitler did. That is my point. Calling one sort of violence “Muslim” but not calling the other sort “Christian” is prejudiced thinking, a double standard.”—Yet this was crystal clear to other readers.

It also highlight another things I pointed out. Said individual is using “islamic principles”( minus sources) to show them as worse than Christians or more violent than christian principles.

I think if it were not Muslims it would be Jews or some other religious boogeyman. It is likely only Muslims because they are the main religious group in the middle east.

You would think at some point America would leave them alone and let them deal with their own problems/problems created by US, but no. The states have to flex their westernization of everyone and everything.

There are extremist in both When an abortion clinic is blown up this is a form of extremism, they don’t represent the true Body of Christ nor his teachings. The horror that happened in France today with the cartoonist being murdered that would be unfair to paint all Muslims because of the actions of these extremist.

“The horror that happened in France today with the cartoonist being murdered that would be unfair to paint all Muslims because of the actions of these extremist.”—Wow. I had not heard of that at all. Thanks for sharing.

@shirinalr; I came home from work and flip the television on and i saw the footage of these two guys shooting and all this pandemonium. They got in a vehicle and drove off. i don’t think they have been apprehended. I just kept thinking how senseless this was. They were angry at the French cartoonist for using images of Allah in their satire. I guess this is considered blasphemy. It was quite disturbing.

Nice source but it does not disprove the wars listed as being christian or non-christian wars. It just says religion was not the primary cause of war. Also I believe the post was to display the double standards. I could be wrong, but I believe it was mentioned in the comment section. *shrugs*

i get the point you are trying to make, but you do have a misleading way of making it. and there was no disclaimer so anyone who reads it would assume you actually believe the statistics you present as fact.

i don’t think muslim people are more violent human beings. but their ideology definitely fosters extremism which often leads to violence, more so than modern christianity without a doubt.

this doesn’t mean muslim people are more violent than christian people. it’s not the people i fear, it’s the ideology.

^^^^Since I have been ignoring you since I said bye yesterday, then the odds of you winning that bet are slim. Of course there is no problem for me going longer as it is no problem for you to still need to respond to me.

In other news, it amazes me that Islam ideology is taught and interpreted by people who do not practice said religion. I have yet to run across someone who is Muslim and is speaking on the religion. So far second hand voices of what it means and stands for.

I’m sorry but a country like Germany HAS to know better than this already. The terrorist attacks in neighboring France have most likely added fuel to these protests & for the anti-islam crowd “proof” that Muslims as a whole are violent. People in the Western world constantly complain of Muslims not assimilating but they’re harassed & other-ized so often I can’t really blame them. If the general populace of your community is hostile & averse to you, you would lock into & embrace what you already had as well.

“even if i’m wrong about my use of the term confirmation bias that’s besides the point. you’re just cherry picking & instigating & i expected that.”—-You are completely wrong about what confirmation bias is, but it is not cherry picking if I chose to address it versus addressing what you claim abagond is arguing.

Cherry picking is a fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)) much like confirmation bias in which said individual points to data and individual cases that confirms their position. That is equivalent to what you did with the Muslims attacks minus the whole story above. :)

“nd you lost that bet as i expected, you just can’t help yourself.”—Unfortunately there was never a bet in place. I simply asked if you would like to bet. I never agreed to one or set a time period that I would ignore you. I just went on to ignore you, which technically I would have won with no time set in place. Besides a bet can not take place if you can’t determine the difference between me ignoring you and me talking to you. I could respond to the general pop about anything and you think it is you, because a hit dog will holler.

“i think i answered Abagond’s question. But you want to focus on my use of the term confirmation bias. now that’s a straw man if i ever seen one!”—Sorry dear but a straw man would require something be argued that was never said or a misrepresentation of your said argument. You did try to attribute your idea of abagond’s claim as being confirmation bias and it was a misuse of the term. Me choosing to respond to it does not equate to a straw man.

“you should just stop addressing me, you’re making a fool of yourself.”—Considering that you not only misused three terms (straw man, confirmation bias, and cherry picking) and put a bet in place that you technically lost I think it is clear that you are the only fool here. :)

From what I have been reading Germany is really big on Anti-Muslim stuff.

“The terrorist attacks in neighboring France have most likely added fuel to these protests & for the anti-islam crowd “proof” that Muslims as a whole are violent. “—I agree.

I wonder how much more Muslims have to assimilate. They throw away a lot just to fit in. Western civilization basically wants them to throw away a great deal of their religion just to be acceptable. This includes no longer covering their head. Mormons on the other hand are applauded for still managing to be modest in spite of fashion changes, but Muslims demonized?

You mentioned confirmation bias, so are you saying you used a red herring to distract from a possible mis-claim of what abagond is arguing in the post? So what everything you wrote a distraction? Because I responded to everything you said dear not something besides the point. :)

Is there a thin line between terrorist and random crazy person or is society now viewing them as one in the same? To me the Charles situation involved 3 crazy individuals which I hope they catch soon. On the other hand I have seen people label the guy that killed the 2 NYPD police officers as terrorist too. So it becomes a matter of what is the determining factor to separate the two.

Now another topic of interest for me I wish to quote from the source I provided earlier.

“On the question of attire, the Quran and the sayings of the Prophet did not say women must adopt a particular dress of a particular country. It only gives basic boundaries, and for a committed Muslim woman, she doesn’t follow this simply because her father or husband tells her, but because Allah already stated that as a requirement in the Quran, and was explained through revelation given to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) that this was not to restrict woman, but to provide a virtuous society where sexual attraction is not the main obsession of everyone. This forces everyone to respect the woman for what she is as a human being, as an intellectual and a spiritual being, rather than being diverted to her sexuality.”—This speaks on the idea of attire for women.

“There are fair and honorable people in the media who are receptive to correction of inaccuracies, and who present the facts, when the facts become manifest, as we have seen in the coverage of the barbaric and cruel treatment of the Palestinians n the Occupied Territories. What I would suggest to the media is instead of depending on the distorted information about Islam, they should keep in touch with educated Muslims, and remember, the U.S. has between 5 and 6 million Muslims. Only through correct representation and open communication with Muslims in America can the media give a fair analysis of current events, given the background of those conflicts, and provide a great service to society.”—-Great advice to the media. Too bad they will never follow it as they give in to their islamophobic behaviors.

The lady at Islam’s women goes on to note that the issue is not just media though and can not simply be blamed on them, although I believe they deserve a big chunk of it. She states “The problems presented here are not the problems of Islam. They are problems of a lack of commitment, lack of application, or misapplication of Islamic teachings by Muslims themselves.”

Muslims misapply the principles in said religion at times. The misapplication could be a result of trying to conform to the growing changes in society. For example less clothes is the fashion trend these days. As such pressure could be on keeping their girls modest by imposing more rules on what to wear.

Women still can’t even drive cars in Saudi Arabia. a foreign exchange student from that country stayed at my relatives for months and he had some pretty interesting things to say about women’s rights in his country.

So the question becomes are the rights and freedoms more what western culture feels Muslims should have? or Are they rights that Muslims want? So far it feels as if they are rights that westernized civilization believes that they want or should want.

Now this is not to say beating, rape, and murder should go unchallenged but complaints such as attire, going out with husband, etc. those seem to be the majority arguments.

“Although there is a Muslim feminism, Muslim and Western feminists’ points of view are very different, and those outside of Islamic culture often make incorrect assumptions about what Muslim women want or need.”—-Very true.

While viewing MHP on MSNBC there was and interesting point was bought up on the Charlie Hebdo tragedy about the radicalized Muslims verses the Muslims who are peaceful. Most radicalization ideology starts in prison environment instead of getting taught in the mosque. Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace. I will be honest what i know about Islam would fit a postage stamp. But i have respect for the cartoonist and they are not being cowed down by the terrorist and they are still speaking with their pens and drawing. The terrorist still didn’t win in my opinion. But this is what causes phobia. All the peaceful Muslims will be lumped in with the violent ones. This is fear will produce ignorance. Just my thoughts.

@ sharinalr; About the radicalized extremist being taught in prison, i heard the panelist make this statement it makes sense. I don’t know if this is the case of all of them. The discourse on MHP (Melissa Harris Perry) gave a little insight about how some of them get started. I am sure they get indoctrinated in other ways. They went on to talk about how in Paris there is huge unemployment there. Much of the Muslim community comes from Africa and Middle East and they live in the ghettos. So imagine that there are lots of poor folks with no jobs and being unproductive. And in Paris if one is not considered French they are not treated very well. So there is lots of marginalization there. So it’s just a hotbed for this sort of thing to get started. Poor people with no jobs being treated badly. There is also lots of anti- semeticism there as well. There is lots of racism in the city of lights.

I don’t condone what those extremist did but a point one of the panelist made she was a Muslim woman. She said she didn’t condone what the terrorist did but they were mocking her faith. That is wrong to mock people’s spiritual beliefs,

The cartoonist were mocking the Muslim faith but i don’t think that the peaceful and moderate Muslims would respond with violence. At least that’s what the Muslim woman on the panel during the discussion on MHP brought forth.

you don’t see extremism as a major disruptive force in Western nations

You’re kidding, right? Slavery, genocide, colonialism, imperialism, the world wars, the Cold War’s nuclear arms race, and the wars waged by Western nations in the Middle East… These major disruptive forces are not extremist?

“Islam, probably like every other world religion, does not condone the slaughter of unarmed civilians.”

I think any religion can be transformed into a political ideology that then can justify violence. But it seems to me, that Islam is more easily transformed in that way then Christianity. At least in the present there is little threat from people who want to transform public order into some sort of “Christian” state, except if you want to count Putin as such.

If it were something inherent to Islam we would be seeing it all throughout history, not just the past 30 years or so.

Historically speaking, Christians have been far more violent than Muslims. Christianity was used to excuse both genocide and slavery. It did not quite work, so now we have racism.

What we are seeing now in the Muslim world comes partly from the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia and Iran, partly from the US’s need for a new enemy after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Terms like “Western values” and, George’s favourite, “ideology”, are repurposed from the Cold War.

“If it were something inherent to Islam we would be seeing it all throughout history, not just the past 30 years or so.”

We do see it throughout history. Movements to reestablish the imagined muslim society pop up regularly in islamic history. The difference to other religions is that these renewal movements don’t only aim at theology or religious institutions, but at society in general. This at least is my impression. One would have to study all these movements to prove it.

“What we are seeing now in the Muslim world comes partly from the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia and Iran, partly from the US’s need for a new enemy after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Terms like “Western values” and, George’s favourite, “ideology”, are repurposed from the Cold War.”

All these things certainly factor into the phenomenon. But these aren’t direct causes. Nothing causes somebody to be a communist. They are just convinced that it would be a good idea to order society in that way. So does an islamist. Now there might be reasons why somebody is likely to believe that, some caused by the West. But at the end of the day everyone chooses himself, what ideology to follow.

I think it is good they asked a Muslim woman what she thinks versus some random chick that spent 1 week around Muslims. It is too much speculation on their ideals and the individual ends up wrong. I agree that a hotbed is created from the conditions.

“But it seems to me, that Islam is more easily transformed in that way then Christianity.”—–I don’t think it is more easy for Muslims. I just think the media focuses on it creating the idea and fear that it does. There is a big sect of Mormon religion that is ordered in a manner comparable to Muslim extremist, but they stay off the grid in the USA.

I think two bells summed it pretty tightly and also touched on many issues concerning, Islamic Jihad.

There is nothing wrong with the Muslim religion itself but this “tit for tat” game has been going on for a looong time.

Just like with Christianity, the problem is how people who practice the religion chooses to Interpret it to suite their needs.

Islamic “Jihad” is nothing new, and just like Christianity has been used as a “weapon” to seek and destroy in the name of God (Allah)

Because what is Jihad: a “holy war” or struggle against unbelievers.

Both Muslims and Christians have waged war on groups of people they have called “unbelievers”

Both Religions have shaped and transformed 5 continents in the world’s history in the last 1000 years: Africa, Asia, Europe, and North/South America

The “hatred” of Muslim/Islam drove the Spanish to “reclaim” Spain and to proceed to eliminate anyone with Islamic or “Semetic” ties, hence mass slaughter and exodus of both Muslims and Jews.

The Christians won the war against Islam in the 1400s, so

This hatred and the desire to see that “Christianity” proliferates, is what kicked off the quest to build a colony in the “new World”,

and the Europeans, in the name of Jesus Christ, Mary, and God — proceeded to enslave and slaughter millions of “Godless” Native Americans and “Godless or Muslim” Africans and began the Atlantic Slave Trade from Africa.

The Muslims, who were deported back to North Africa from Europe, did not take their expulsion sitting down.

They proceeded to raid and enslave Europeans in what is called the “Barbary Slave Trade” (with the permission and blessing of the Turks/Ottomans)

and this opened the door for both European and American invasion into Africa.

(this is how the USA got their motto that they would not pay ransom for hostages)

Thomas Jefferson: “in Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: “The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them

When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli’s demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States.”

The Europeans and Americans retaliated by attacking North Africa, opening the door for the Europeans to occupy and begin the Colonization of nearly the entire Continent of Africa.

allowing them to realize the dream of controlling the African Gold mines, and taking the trade away from the Muslims.

and in the Name of Jesus Christ, Mary, and God — Christian missionaries wre unleashed and proceeded to begin the “conversion” of those Heathen Africans

and teach them the value of “hard work” and punishment for disobeying God. (Lessons were held in the Gold, Diamond, and mineral mines)

the Belgians taught about 10 million Africans of the Congo, that disobedience of God’s will leads to death and lost limbs.

Europe got rich beyond belief— thanks to their Christian “Jihad” and followed the money trail right into Asia.

and Christian missionaries went to the Pacific Islands on mass to continue educating those Heathens as well.

The British and French occupied, divided, and restructure Africa and the Middle East — and the native people of these regions have been fighting to put it back to it’s old borders before the European “Jihad”

Both Christians and Muslims have used “God” as a reason to perform, practice and endorse “Jihad” against anyone they chose to impose their will upon.

However, what exactly IS a Christian? There are many in so-called Christian Countries, probaby the majority in most, who don’t even call themseves Christians. And of those who do, how many have professed with their lips in front of witnesses that their heart and soul belongs to Jesus. Furthermore, Jesus did teach violence at all. In fact He taught us to turn the other cheek. So its pretty certain that those who preach a life of violence are, literally and by definition, not Christians at all!

The problem is that many forget that God was the voice in he bible throughout the old testament. Jesus’s is the New testament. Most people like to focus and point to the new testament as “see it teaches peace” while ignoring that the bible did not always teach as such.

“The problem is that many forget that God was the voice in he bible throughout the old testament. Jesus’s is the New testament. Most people like to focus and point to the new testament as “see it teaches peace” while ignoring that the bible did not always teach as such.

There is a clear double standard.”

That’s because there has always been tension in Christianity between the Old and New Testaments — if Paul of Tarsus had not come on the scene and said “all of that old Testament stuff doesn’t matter; rather, all that matters is seeking salvation through faith in Christ”, Christianity would have probably remained an obscure Jewish sect and faded into obscurity. Simultaneously, without the credibility afforded by association with deep antiquity (a quality highly valued in the ancient world), Christianity would probably have not become widely accepted in the Roman empire. (This is just one possible reason among many contributing factos, mind you…)

So, even though Paul won the argument with Peter over whether or not salvation is realized through faith versus strict adherence to Jewish law, tensions (and thus contradiction and confusion) remain to this day.

correction: I just realized I spoke anacronistically with respect to the New Testament… it of course did not exist in it’s current form in Paul and Peter’s day. Please mind that I was referring to the spirit and tone of the times that led to said tensions in proto-Orthodox and eventually Orthodox Christianity.

Just as most Christians seem to understand that the Spanish conquistadors were perverting religion for their own ends, so likewise do most Muslim seem to regard the likes of ISIS or the Charlie Hebdo killers.

“Just as most Christians seem to understand that the Spanish conquistadors were perverting religion for their own ends, so likewise do most Muslim seem to regard the likes of ISIS or the Charlie Hebdo killers”

You are comparing something that happened 500 years ago to Islamic extremism that is happening in the world today.

I know you are trying to make a point but you are really reaching here.

“You are comparing something that happened 500 years ago to Islamic extremism that is happening in the world today.”—If you full understood her point you would know she is not comparing to begin with. She is stating that Christians understood then that the Spanish perverted the religion in the same manner that most Muslims realize that extremist are perverting it. Based on stats and research this is true. A good deal of Muslims do not support extremism.

You don’t have to March as a society of 3million to oppose something. Making that a criteria for opposing is a ridiculous argument to begin with. Muslim leaders have opposed it publicly.

@everyone

As a side note this retort is similar to one a guy made about blacks not marching to oppose black on black crime, but will March for a thug. I decided to post a link of gang violence and black on black crime rallies. The retort was “not on the same scale.” Why does magnitude matter so much when they are trying to argue they don’t care at all?

there’s a big difference between what happened 500 years ago & what is happening right now.

i agree that the conquistadors did had a very profound effect on the world. but who can you hold accountable for their behavior?

there are people who murder in the name of Islam every single day, and this is happening right now in our lifetime. Christianity has apparently evolved over the past 500 years because people don’t kill in the name of Jesus on a such large scale.

Hopefully the institution of Islam as a whole will evolve & deal with it’s rampant extremism, which is a huge problem whether you want to admit it or not. The modern world as a whole will only tolerate it for so long.

It only took 17 lives to mobilize over 3 million French people. But in the middle east more than that die almost on a daily basis & there is no evidence of large scale opposition like this.

Christianity has apparently evolved over the past 500 years because people don’t kill in the name of Jesus on a such large scale.

This is something I keep hearing, especially from white people. While the West has supposedly “evolved” or “progressed” to a stage of “modernity”, societies like the Islamic world are “mired in the past” and therefore “uncivilized”. At the same time, however, the influence of Christianity in the Western world has precipitously declined over the last few hundred years. Do you think this may be due in part to the concurrent rise in the importance of race in the West?

Right. Christianity has not “evolved”. It has decayed. Certainly by the standards of 1100, and even by the minimal standards of 1900. The moral fervour that many Whites in the US had in the 1850s is unthinkable now. The wealth and power of the West has corrupted it and made it morally blind. Racism is a piece of that moral blindness.

In short the islamic countries need to be like the west. It does not matter if they fight extremist or if they openly denounce them. What matter is that they organize a 3 million man protest against it. LOL

What do you mean by ” …rise in the importance of race in the West?” Over what timespan and in what way?

As George said, over the past 500 years. For example, a practicing Jew likely has a much higher chance of being elected president of the United States than an Asian American Christian.

Twenty-three percent of Americans said they are uncomfortable with the idea of voting for an Asian American candidate for president, compared to 15% for an African American, 14% for a woman and 11% for a Jew.

“Right. Christianity has not “evolved”. It has decayed. Certainly by the standards of 1100,”

@Abagond

Christianity has evolved. In the 1100s Christians were brutal, they killed in the name of Jesus, they disrupted entire societies. This continued for centuries. Slavery was justified, Colonization, Inquisitions, Genocide. There is no excuse for this type of behavior.

Would you prefer that Christians today acted more like Christians did in 1100?

I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to perse all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends.

– Pope Urban II (according to Fulcher of Chartres), instigator of the First Crusade

“But these incidents point to a long-worsening trend of hostility in France toward the country’s Muslim minority, which makes up an estimated eight to 10 percent of the population, and a sense among French Muslims that they are not welcome.”—So basically they have been harrassing the Muslims for sometime.

Are the three men actually Muslims or just three men trying to stir the pot?

Im pretty sure the wars that most of the wars that are listed were wars that europeans and americans fought , not to do with the christian faith. Listing wars that have nothing to do with religion, and putting them on the christian side is no way to help your case, it just shows you arent well informed or you arent confident that your arguement is well supported with the actual numbers, therefore you present false data to try and cover up.

The bible verses that condone killing are meant for war, not unnecessary war. one of the ten commandments “you shall not kill” does not necessarily mean do not go to war for protection. The hebrew word for kill actually means murder, as in the killing of an innocent . If you look back in the bible, they fought wars against those who were oppressive, not the small country who had a piece of land that christians wanted. Still, the crusades were not the right idea.

In the quran/koran, it also says to keep fighting for self defense, but look at 9/11, ISIS, Al Qaeda, recently the Charlie Hebdo incident, and other muslim extremist groups. This is not to says that every muslim is going to blow up a building, many, if not most are peaceful, but the underlying fact is that today, there seems to be more muslims than christians that are misinterpreting or ignoring what their book says about killing.

I am sorry but there are plenty of bible versus that have little or nothing to do with war. Just killing. I will post when time permits.

“but the underlying fact is that today, there seems to be more muslims than christians that are misinterpreting or ignoring what their book says about killing.”—-Do you have the numbers to support this idea or is it based on what the media is willing to support? I have found quite a few cases where Christians today are forming militia and attacking Muslims. It seems to be a back and forth between Muslims and Christians. The major difference is one you can’t even get on the news.

Re: my previous comment, what an odd thing to suggest…plagiarism? my CITATIONS referred to expert opinion on the issue which you chose to remove I think the community can take from that what they will, I know I do. In closing, I am sure that the position taken in the article rebuttal has nothing to do with it’s removal.

I agree that Christianity (at least Catholicism) has evolved it’s stance on violence and a free and democtatic society. But that is not a development of the last 500 years but one of the last 100. A few months ago i said on this thread that the last example for clear church-supported war was the Spanish Civil War. There Catholics literally fought a crusade. It is also very interesting and telling that the idea that Islam isn’t compatible with a free society sounds very similar to the things that were said about Catholicism in the US a century ago.

To demand from muslims that they renounce the Islamists is nonsense. Nothing of the sort is ever demanded from Christians in regards to abortion-clinic bombers and the like. That clearly is a double-standard. On the other hand to say that Islamism “has nothing to do with Islam” is also nonsense. The ISIS fighters are muslims just as much as the french cop that was murdered in Paris. Also there aren’t two clearly seperated groups of muslims, one moderate and completly opposed to the extremists and the violent Islamists. It’s a continuum where many don’t support ISIS and comparable groups, but may be in favour of executing apostates. This support group of the Islamists are the real danger. How their influence can be litmited I don’t know, but one factor certainly is that the moderate muslims stand up to them (what many do and is something that should be applauded).

“but could you explain why would you prefer Christians who enslaved and committed genocide?

Christians were pretty disruptive to the world as a whole in the past. would you prefer that a modern version of the conquistadors were roaming the earth today?”

1100 was a round number. 1050 would be better. The point being, it was before they became corrupted by the Crusades (1095-1291). Religion was used as an excuse for conquest, for holy war, which created a terrible moral hazard that did not turn out well. In the case of the Spanish it led to the rise of the conquistadors, genocide, slavery and present-day racism.

“How their influence can be litmited I don’t know, but one factor certainly is that the moderate muslims stand up to them (what many do and is something that should be applauded).”— I agree, but the issue I have see with Americans is in one breath they will say “good for you guys standing up” and in another “you guys should stand up more.” They can’t win for losing.

I think hat creates the idea that no matter what Americans will view them the same and eventually it festers anger and divide.

fundraising doesn’t create sustainable economy. Nigeria doesn’t need any donations, that place is booming. They are building incredible businesses right now, good economic times are very near for Nigeria.

The interesting thing to me isn’t that Hitler and the Nazi’s were christian.

Hitler and his crew did their best to co-opt and manipulate the dominant religion of Germany for their own purposes but many private statements by Hitler and his upper echelon indicate they were not Christian.

Historians such as Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest and Alan Bullock agree that Hitler was anti-Christian – a view evidenced by sources such as the Goebbels Diaries, the memoirs of Speer, and the transcripts edited by Martin Bormann contained within Hitler’s Table Talk.[4] Goebbels wrote in 1941 that Hitler “hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity.”[5] Many historians have come to the conclusion that Hitler’s long term aim was the eradication of Christianity in Germany,[6] while others maintain that there is insufficient evidence for such a plan.”

“Laurence Rees concludes that “Hitler’s relationship in public to Christianity – indeed his relationship to religion in general – was opportunistic. There is no evidence that Hitler himself, in his personal life, ever expressed any individual belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church”

“Christianity is an invention of sick brains,” Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.”

” Evans wrote that Hitler repeatedly stated that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on science, which in the long run could not “co-exist with religion”

From Hitler’s table talk:

“Only in the Roman Empire and in Spain under Arab domination has culture been a potent factor. Under the Arab, the standard attained was wholly admirable; to Spain flocked the greatest scientists, thinkers, astronomers, and mathematicians of the world, and side by side there flourished a spirit of sweet human tolerance and a sense of purist chivalry. Then with the advent of Christianity, came the barbarians. Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers—already you see the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity!—then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.”

“In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together. [On a question from C. S., whether this antagonism might mean a war, the Fuehrer continued:] No, it does not mean a war. The ideal solution would be to leave the religions to devour themselves, without persecutions. But in that case we must not replace the Church by something equivalent. That would be terrifying! It goes without saying that the whole thing needs a lot of thought. Everything will occur in due time. . . . The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance. Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. The result of the collapse of the Roman Empire was a night that lasted for centuries.”

A disgusting event, but the perpetrator, Ahmed H. Aden, was a Somalian immigrant with a name that is common for muslim men. (Ahmed, apparently it comes from the Koran..) Pretty clear he had anti-muslim feelings (and is probably a bit off..). I have read several claims that he is Christian convert (from Islam).

I can’t disagree with you there. I think anyone who allows such hate to consume them that they will kill is crazy.

Though the fear Is that “Muslim looking” and “Muslim names ” have gotten people killed. This is especially a problem when people give their children names they simply like or people emulate looks they like.

“1100 was a round number. 1050 would be better. The point being, it was before they became corrupted by the Crusades (1095-1291). Religion was used as an excuse for conquest, for holy war, which created a terrible moral hazard that did not turn out well. In the case of the Spanish it led to the rise of the conquistadors, genocide, slavery and present-day racism.”

^^^ you call this an answer Abagond?

the fact that you’d rather modern day Christians act more like Christians did during the Crusades is extremely concerning. thinking like that could set our society back centuries. the West is moving forward. i’m not trying to turn back the clock & revisit the dark ages. why are you?

just because there are extremist groups killing in the names of Islam doesn’t mean Christians should return the favor & act more like the violent Christians of the Crusades.

“the fact that you’d rather modern day Christians act more like Christians did during the Crusades .”—Actually that is not at all what he said and is also not an indication of what he meant in what you quoted of his. He stated clear as day pre-corruption by crusades.

“The Crusades were in fact violent and led to atrocities by the modern world’s standards under the banner of the cross and in the name of Christianity. After breaching the walls of Jerusalem in 1099, for example, the Crusaders reportedly slaughtered almost every inhabitant of the Holy City.”

“stop all that seriously, the grownups are speaking right now..”—-I know which is why I am confused on why you are in the conversation, but since you are I think it is best that it be discussed as an adult would and that requires you act as such.

He clarified what he meant in the statement I quoted. You are then trying to misrepresent what he says and trying to make him out to be something of a poor or lost sole simply because his opinions or thoughts do not go well with yours. What you quoted was several posts prior to him giving more details on his thoughts. If you don’t like the response then stop asking, but I can tell you clearly that after a while abagond does not respond to certain types.

“LOL. you’re actually backpedaling for Abagond, why?”—-A person can not backpedal for another person, but a person can bring in statements from another person to show when and where they said what.

When you originally asked him that was what he said (I never said he did not say it), but you continued to ask him in which he did provided a clear clarification and why. You did not like the response, so now you are going to go on an on about how he is xyz simply because his thoughts are senseless to you.

Ignoring you is not a matter of backpedaling, but a matter of knowing when any discussion with you is going nowhere. You are no longer looking to debate but throw around ad hominems. A typical habit of yours anytime someone does not agree with your ideas or way of thinking.

@George, Chrisitians in the 1100’s defended themselves from rampant Muslim fanaticism which had swept across the Chrisitian Middle East up into Spain. History shows us that Muslims go on these rampages every few hundred years proletizing with the sword, the current jihad is just the latest in a long line of similar attempted violent conquests of the West.

I would like to highlight a point. The majority of terrorists who identify as Muslim have killed in the name of their faith. Their religion motivated them to commit their crimes. The majority of terrorists who identify as Christian, however, usually aren’t motivated to kill because of their religion.

Some people say that Timothy McVeigh is a “Christian terrorists”. And it’s true, McVeigh was a terrorist, and he did identify as a Christian on and off throughout his life. However, the motivation for his attack was not religious, but political. I think it would be more accurate to label him simply as a “Western terrorist”, of which there are plenty.

I’m not writing this to say Christianity is any better than Islam. Christians have killed more people throughout history. It just seems to me that people are using the terms “Western” and “Christian” interchangeably. Hitler was indeed a white, Western man. And he may have identified as Catholic personally, I don’t know. But his motivation for killing the Jews was racial, not religious. He was a Western mass murderer, but I don’t know if I’d call him a Christian one.

Ideologies, even ones that are largely positive, do tend to kill. Particularly when they’re forced upon people who don’t want them and/or don’t need them. Both the West and the Islamic World have a habit of thinking they’re saving the planet by spreading what they believe, often by force, to other parts of the world. Usually the recipients of their ideological outbreak don’t feel all that saved.

He is obviously black and Islamic himself as you see he always uses the word White when it comes to America. No word of Africa though huh? Crazy how there is black soldiers in the White America’s army. I’m not a Christian but I do know when I see reversed racism.

Hatred and evil is in the heart of mankind. And left to our own devise any of us could do great evil. Most of the wars that are said to be Christian wars were not, but were political wars. Just because America was mostly Christian during the wars in the 20th century doesn’t mean they are wars done in the name of Christ. Hitler was not a Christian. American slavery was an abomination according levitical law. Just because someone says they are Christian doesn’t mean they are “You’ll know them by there fruits”. The road is more narrow then people think to be a true follower of Christ and few find it. This doesn’t make Christians better than unbelievers. Both are sinners, just one is redeemed through Christ love…..

This is all based on Wikipedia information. Really!
It’s sad to see so MANY people so deluded by a web sight, its like looking at the masses following religion – a group that is fed only information “they” want them to know.
Please grow up – Wikipedia is the most biased web sight there is. It’s actually worse than Fox News!

“And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

Reblogged this on News for the Blind and commented:
Proof that Christians are more violent than any other religious groups. Here in America, over 67% of capital murders are done by those of the Christian faith….something for the Christian filth to think about as they push their pathetic religion on the rest of the world

What an asinine article! First off you can’t just throw two major world wars into the caused by Christians camp you idiot! Unless the war was specifically for a religious cause ie: The Crusades etc. Then it should not even be in the list! WWI and WWII were fought over territory and political ideologies.
The fact is Islam is the ONLY religion that was spread originally by war and violence. Early Christianity was spread by the gospel (bible) through apostles and teaching. Yes eventually it turned violent as most religions do when they try to push their ideology on others. Hell even non bug squishing Jainist kings went to war in India. There is no religion without blood on its hands through history.
Anyway I don’t dwell in the past, I live in the now, and the only religion I currently see committing genocide and conflict all over the globe for religious reasons as of 2015 is Islam! ;)

SHARINA you are the most ignorant and biased pro Islam cheerleader I have EVER had the displeasure of reading comments from! You can’t even admit when you’re clearly wrong. I respect all religions, but you are a simply a racist raving lunatic, and hopefully not living in the US as I would strongly suspect you support ISIS/ISIL and Jihad. That concerns me.
I would absolutely have you in tears in a real face to debate debate over these issues.
Yes unfortunately there is “Islamophobia” in the world right now, and it truly is a shame because all Muslims do not want violent conflict and many support reform unlike the brainwashed 19th century throwback Sunni Salafists who want to keep the world in the dark ages with extremist control measures and violent Caliphate revivals. Maybe I’ll just go get a suit of armor and a long sword and meet them on the plains of battle lol
You don’t like all this unfair Islamophobia? Then stop hiding behind your hijab like the frightened little girl you no doubt are and take a stand for what’s right! Instead of being a submissive little battered weakling blaming every problem in the world on Christians and the West then say “no I will not let my beautiful religion be perverted and hijacked by a bunch of throwback radicals” but I strongly suspect you will do nothing because that is what weak women more afraid of being beaten by their husbands than bravely taking a stand generally do. You would rather meekly submit then actually try to change the world for the better, and thus nothing will change. I actually pity you. Must be a very sad and hopeless existence you lead being so filled with hate, mostly of yourself. I will pray for you. :)

If I was actually wrong then you would be able to debate what I said other than making an essay filled with name calling. Plus I will be more than happy to point to places where I did admit I was wrong.

“I would absolutely have you in tears in a real face to debate debate over these issues.”—I doubt it. Mainly because you are an online tough guy or gal with a chip on their shoulder about what you secretly have determined I believe, but considering I made it clear what I believe it highly concerns me when a persons first comment consists of reading comprehension issues. :)

“You don’t like all this unfair Islamophobia? Then stop hiding behind your hijab like the frightened little girl you no doubt are and take a stand for what’s right!”—-I am Mormon. This is obviously a clear indication you did not read anything I said and this was stated way….too… Often. Plus I am entitled to call unfair treatment for what it is. I thought in America that was part of my right or is that another part of the American lie?

“I actually pity you. Must be a very sad and hopeless existence you lead being so filled with hate, mostly of yourself. I will pray for you.”—ROFL. I really don’t know what is more pathetic. The fact that you took the time to fantasize about what you think I believe as this imaginary Muslim or the fact that you decided to hit the submit button. The instability of it all. I suggest you hold a prayer circle for yourself.

As other have said, your stats are way off, along with your facts, but perhaps your biggest mistake is not to count the agressor and defender. For example, the Crusades were a reaction to Islamic violent conquest awakened with Jerusalem finally fell to the Muslim sword. That’s the cold inarguable truth yet you don’t mention the deaths caused by the Muslims nor the fact that the Crusades were a defensive war against the onslaught of Islam. I have heard it said that 95% of wars are Islamic and I can well believe it. Pick a war today.

“I’m assuming you’re a Muslim.. Am incorrect? Our bible teaches is NOT to kill.. And we don’t. ISIS kills people everyday.. Your lies will catch up to you one day.”

Actually, there are a number of countries in the world today, even white, Christian countries who feel exactly like they are living in the midst of World War III and the US is the aggressor. But the US carefully defines world war in a way that will always leave it blameless. And it’s unfair to talk about the wars being fought in the Middle East when it could well be covert ops of the US instigating those wars. Some question if ISIS is real or another covert op of the US. US covert ops instigated a race war in my folks’ country that left us (the minority population) officially extinct.

All that being said, I did feel like this post rather too carefully defined ‘violence’ so as to absolve the Middle East. Being descended from people who were slaves to Middle Eastern Imperialists for centuries, with no rights they were bound to respect and any number of poles shoved up our butts to make that point, so to speak, it’s rather ingrained in the DNA to not perceive them as innocents. Though I appreciate the effort to point out that the West’s condemnation of the Middle East is entirely hypocritical and self-serving.

Nonetheless you’re not likely to find any of us who found ourselves ‘kidnapped’ into their subcontinent for half a millennium who aren’t thoroughly convinced that it is a very aggressive culture. They made that point REAL clear with us. Especially with those pointy poles.

@sharinalr
Oh dear. Here we go with the ad hominem attack. Unable to refute my rebuttal of a grossly inaccurate analysis, you resort to semantic nitpicking, then move to personal attack.
.
The asking about taqiyyah was *sarcasm*. Oops, how could you have missed that? Was it all too subtle for you Sharinalr?
.
But then that’s how you Islamapologists operate. Incapable of objective argument, and unable to defend an ideology which routinely violates human rights, you attack the debater. It’s the only tactic you have…

Your initial response was an ad hominem attack. I just responded in kind. So basically you can make the attacks, but can not take them.

“”Unable to refute my rebuttal of a grossly inaccurate analysis, you resort to semantic nitpicking, then move to personal attack.”—Actually your rebuttal was refuted by several people already above. I simply saw no need to rinse and repeat. Not to mention a key element in the article you failed to read…”The mistake here lies not in the numbers but in the words “ Calling, say, the 9/11 terrorists “Muslim” is like calling Hitler “Christian”: true yet misleading.” Then again maybe you did read it but failed to understand it. Here is something even more funny..it is said ( correspondences and documentation) that 911 attacks was more attack on American government and not religious motivation. Other Islamic extremist groups goals are western overthrow. Not religious take over. In short, just because a person claims to be part of a religion does not mean they are doing in the name of that religion.

“The asking about taqiyyah was *sarcasm*.”—Asking about it has nothing to do with your inaccurate use of the word, which lead me to believe you have no idea what it means. I just found it odd and funny that you were asking a person the meaning of a word you did not even know. Particularly in this day and age when such knowledge is at ones fingertips.

“It’s the only tactic you have…”—You should not assume. I prefer to feel people out before going into in-depth responses. As such I was able to determine what type of person you are. So far not much of one. :)

@Sharinalr
In fact, you’re the one who needs tuition in critical thinking. Looking closer at your sloppy analysis:
“Actually your rebuttal was refuted by several people already above”
Wrong. Since those other comments occurred =before= my rebuttal, they could not have been written to refute my post.
.
“a key element in the article you failed to read”
Wrong. I read the whole article, including the rider at the end (more on that below).
You failed to properly read my post. I did not say Abagond’s =post= was inaccurate, I said that the =analysis= (i.e. the conflict list), was grossly inaccurate, and it is.
It’s as if Abagond deliberately set an intellectual trap, by putting up statistics he does not agree with, then placing his caveat right at the end, where many a casual reader (in spite of his up-front warning), would overlook it.
If he does not agree with the conflict attributions Christian/Muslim, why publish those figures at all?
.
Much better would have been to have edited that list, indicating conflicts that were primarily political or secular (perhaps removing them altogether) and omitting any such from his totals. Then we would have a clear and =useful= comparison of religious violence.
.
Instead, we have a post which lacks clarity, and has spawned many comments both from those who get-it, and those who don’t. Either way, his conflict list is not particularly useful.
.
Face it, Sharinalr, you have a second-rate intellect. What are you? A college preppy? ;)
.
P.S. What is your definition of ‘taqiyyah’?

“In fact, you’re the one who needs tuition in critical thinking. Looking closer at your sloppy analysis:”–Do you really know how dumb you sound here. You don’t get tuition in critical thinking. LOL.

“Wrong. Since those other comments occurred =before= my rebuttal, they could not have been written to refute my post.”—This is where your critical thinking is lacking. You presented an argument that others have already presented. Those same arguments ( word for word) were refuted and as such so was yours.. It does not matter if you are now re-presenting it. I can always copy and past from others, do a rinse and repeat and your argument would thus be refuted if that makes a difference.

“You failed to properly read my post. I did not say Abagond’s =post= was inaccurate, I said that the =analysis= (i.e. the conflict list), was grossly inaccurate, and it is.”—Oh I read your post clearly, but I will say you failed to properly read or even comprehend mine. Your recent response is nothing more but a mere deflection away from that fact by trying to point towards something I simply did not dispute in your original post. So I will quote what I am disputing so you can have some clarity.

You stated “That’s the difference: The Islamic offensives were fought in the =name of Islam=, an ideology whose stated aim is to Islamize the world.”

That statement is not entirely true and based on documentation may indeed be false based on what I stated above. Do you need a copy and past of what was said so as to avoid confusion?

Now on to your new found analysis.

“I did not say Abagond’s =post= was inaccurate, I said that the =analysis= (i.e. the conflict list), was grossly inaccurate, and it is.”—I am trying to find the post were I accused you of saying it was.

“Much better would have been to have edited that list, indicating conflicts that were primarily political or secular (perhaps removing them altogether) and omitting any such from his totals. Then we would have a clear and =useful= comparison of religious violence.”—–You simply do not get the point of the post. The point was basically to point out the hypocrisy. In separating it in the manner you speak of the point would be lost.

“Face it, Sharinalr, you have a second-rate intellect. What are you? A college preppy?”—I am sure you wish this to be true, but it seems to be more of a self reflection. You used a word you did not have enough knowledge to understand and then had the nerve to think yourself smart enough to deflect by putting focus on something I never disputed or refuted. I would not be so bold as to even call you a second-rate intellect as it is clear you do not fall in the category of intellect.

“What is your definition of ‘taqiyyah’?”—I don’t have a personal definition of the word, but those that regularly use it do. Perhaps you should do a google search and find the actually answer. :)

@Sharinalr
“You don’t get tuition in critical thinking.”
Wrong. Firstly, you contradict your own statement a few posts above, “…5k, 1st, or 2nd grade. I believe those grades teach reading and critical thinking.” Secondly, there are such courses at college level also, as a simple web search shows. Obviously you do not check facts before shooting your mouth off: http://www.mtsac.edu/philosophy/courses.html (see ‘PHIL 8 Critical Thinking’ partway down the page)
You laugh the laugh of fools, Sharina.
.
“same arguments (word for word) were refuted and as such so was yours.”
There is no other argument which is word-for-word the same as mine. The refutations to previous, similar arguments, were =attempted= refutations. You have assumed that they are valid i.e. assumed evidence not proven.
More fuzzy, uncritical analysis.
.
“…a mere deflection away from … something I simply did not dispute in your original post…”
Yes, I introduced something not dealt with in your convoluted rebuttals. So sue me.
Not a deflection, but a valid suggestion. However, you missed my implied point, so let me spell it out:
Producing an erroneous list of religious wars, merely to make trivial points about hypocrisy and mislabeling, is wasted effort. A real, thorough analysis, would be far more interesting and useful.
.
Muslims and Islamapologists repeatedly claim that Christianity is more violent than Islam, but without producing any evidence or analysis to support their assertions. I had hoped that Abagond’s matrix of conflicts might be such evidence (one way or the other). But it is not. Yes, he has made some minor points, but he has also left intact a matrix which he knows is inaccurate, which =seems= to show that Christianity is more violent. That is misleading, and in a sense hypocritical, in itself.
.
Such a comparison of conflicts will always be arguable as to attributions, conflicts with multiple motives, omissions, disputed figures etc but it would be something to work from, a starting point. Something more solid than the empty, unsupported claims trotted out by Islamophiles.
.
“That statement is not entirely true and based on documentation may indeed be false.”
May indeed? Wow, that’s powerful language Sharina. Another unsupported assertion from a woolley thinker.
What documentation? Produce it.
.
“I don’t have a personal definition of the word,” [taqiyyah i.e.]
I’m sorry? You claim I misused the word, but you are unable to define it?
Now =that= is laughable! LOL.
.
I regret grading your intellect as second rate. I was wrong, you have a third rate intellect…

You are getting dumber and more desperate per post. 5k , 1st, and 2nd grades are in the k-12 educational system where they teach the basics of critical thinking. That is not critical thinking tuition. As tuition is a payment. Providing a link to philosophy is not changing or disputing what I originally said to that poster. It is called an insult. Too bad you did not get it. LOL.

“There is no other argument which is word-for-word the same as mine….”—MMHh word for word may have been an exaggeration, but otherwise the same arguments you presented were disputed none the less. Quite early on in the comment section I might add and like you those individuals did not get the point of the post. Once the point was explained to them they either added input or moved on. That is not an assumption but an observed fact. If you have no idea what the person’s point is then you can’t really present a reasonable argument to begin with. You are creating an assumed argument in which you assume what the person means or believes.

“Not a deflection”—It is not a suggestion, but simple deflection. Not only because you are arguing something I never disputed, but you are not addressing the actually things that are being disputed. You are trying to pull the conversation into something you feel you are more stable at winning. It is also one of the intellectual dishonest moves. Just because I pointed out what you are doing in an effort to let you know I am not going there, does not mean I have no idea what your point is. You are just creating an alternate argument route. It is just sad and a bit pointless.

“Muslims and Islamapologists repeatedly claim that Christianity is more violent than Islam, but without producing any evidence or analysis to support their assertions. I had hoped that Abagond’s matrix of conflicts might be such evidence (one way or the other). But it is not. Yes, he has made some minor points, but he has also left intact a matrix which he knows is inaccurate, which =seems= to show that Christianity is more violent. That is misleading, and in a sense hypocritical, in itself.”—ROFL!!! You are missing the point and the more you speak the more you are making it very apparent you missed the point. A point that has been stated on repeated occasions by abagond in the comment section. You are trying too hard to appear educated that you just look stupid. The post is not some statistical or scientific revelation where the numbers are set to prove x or y. The question is a rhetorical one.

“May indeed? Wow, that’s powerful language Sharina. Another unsupported assertion from a woolley thinker.
What documentation? Produce it.”—Since you like looking through my old posts, perhaps you will have fun looking for the link I posted above. Don’t worry it was posted this year. ;)

“I’m sorry? You claim I misused the word, but you are unable to define it?
Now =that= is laughable! LOL.”—-It’s not that I can not define it, but you asked MY definition of the word not THE definition of the word. I did not create the word to have a definition of it. Nothing like an insult that goes over ones head. That is twice now isn’t it. But to not drag this out any longer. You presented taqiyyah as if it’s direct translation was lying/liar/BS. Which is false seeing as the word has no direct English translation. It deals with doctrine that allows a Muslim to conceals their belief under fear of death or injury to oneself or community.

“I regret grading your intellect as second rate. I was wrong, you have a third rate intellect”—Either way still beats you and your no intellect and with that in mind your grading scale means noting.

Except for one thing…America is not Christian, we have separation of Church and State and are actually religiously tolerant of all religions according to our first amendment to the Constitution, unlike Islamic countries where only Islam is accepted.

Secondly, Jihad destroyed a Christian Middle East and a Christian North Africa. Soon it was the fate of the Persian Zoroastrian and the Hindu to be the victims of jihad. The history of political Islam is the destruction of Christianity in the Middle East, Egypt, Turkey and North Africa. Half of Christianity was lost. Before Islam, North Africa was the southern part of Europe (part of the Roman Empire). Around 60 million Christians were slaughtered during the jihadic conquest. Half of the glorious Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus killed. The first Western Buddhists were the Greeks descended from Alexander the Great’s army in what is now Afghanistan. Jihad destroyed all of Buddhism along the silk route. About 10 million Buddhists died. The conquest of Buddhism is the practical result of pacifism. Zoroastrianism was eliminated from Persia. The Jews became permanent dhimmis throughout Islam. In Africa over 120 million Christians and animists have died over the last 1400 years of jihad. So approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for the glory of political Islam. These are the tragedies of Jihad which are not taught in any school.

“Jihad destroyed a Christian Middle East and a Christian North Africa.”—You may want to choose a different word than destroyed. While the christian population is significantly smaller as a result of Islamic conquest, they remain none the less.

An interesting fact is that around the time of the Spanish Inquisition, large numbers of Jews fled persecution in Europe and headed for the Middle East because they knew they would have better lives as Ottoman subjects. The common understanding was that Jews were treated better under Muslim rule than under Christian rule. The Holocaust is a case in point.

The periods of history when the Middle East was most violent were often due to outside invasions, like by the Crusaders or the Mongols. The last great power that kept the peace in the Middle East was the Ottoman Empire. This peace, known as the Pax Ottomana, lasted for centuries until the empire’s decline and collapse after World War I. The Middle East was then divided by the British and the French.

After World War II, the Middle East became a Cold War battleground between the United States and the Soviet Union. The creation of Israel further escalated tensions in the region. Nowadays, the Middle East has become a dumping ground for Western defense companies’ arms sales in the War on Terror. It has also attracted the attention of Western oil companies.

It is only during the last couple of centuries that violence has escalated in the Middle East and led to the Christian population dwindling due to persecution. It just so happens that during this time, Western imperial powers were encroaching upon the region. Actually, that is no coincidence.

I avoid all religious faiths like the plague especially Abrahamic religions like Islam and Christianity. I don’t care for Judaism but right now, Judaism is somewhat tolerable even though I don’t believe in any of it’s core beliefs. To me, religion is the cause of most of the world’s problems and causes many wars in the past, present and future.

This is my view, being a non believer but I respect other view points that are different from mine.

@sharinalr We are accepting of all religions and you cannot be discriminated against for your religion according to the first amendment. We are based on Christian principles, but separation of church and state makes it clear we are not a Christian nation. That law may be overruled soon to allow all marriages (if it hasn’t been already). How about attempt to destroy? You’re right destroyed probably wasn’t accurate.

@Kiwi The Holocaust? You are blaming that on Christianity? That is so far fetched. Yes I know, but I could say today that any Jew who steps foot in an Islamic country will be killed if it is found out they are Jewish, where as anywhere in Europe, the Jews are accepted. So yes, the Christians have had some bad relations in the past, but historically, Islam has had worse. If you have evidence against that, please provide it.

Well, the Crusades were actually an act of self defense by the Catholic Church after Muslims had taken control of the holy lands. The Muslims had conquered the land so the purpose of the Crusades was to get it back.

Yes, I know the state of Israel did not exactly help tensions. Yes, and the war on terrorists is a very good thing. And what does oil have to do with Christianity?

The Christian population is not dwindling. Yah, encroaching upon the region because of all the terrorism that comes out of there.

“So yes, the Christians have had some bad relations in the past, but historically, Islam has had worse. If you have evidence against that, please provide it.”

“Historically”, Christians have killed at least 5 million Jews as Jews. Where is your “evidence” that Muslims have killed more?

“Well, the Crusades were actually an act of self defense by the Catholic Church after Muslims had taken control of the holy lands. The Muslims had conquered the land so the purpose of the Crusades was to get it back.”

The Catholic Church has never ruled the Holy Land. Muslims had ruled it for over 400 years before the Crusades. It was hardly an act of “self defense”

When did we kill 5 million Jews. And no the Holocaust doesn’t count because the Hitler was not a Christian.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The whole point of the crusades was to GET BACK the Holy land, not conquer it for the first time. Research it. The Muslims conquered it from the Byzantium empire aka East Roman empire…hint hint, Roman Catholicism…

@Kiwi “I see. The slaughter of Muslim women and children was just an “act of self-defense”.

Only because the Muslims conquered it first when we had control of it. And it’s not like the Muslims are exempt for slaughtering anyone. Especially now, any terrorist operation…Islam, plus 270 million dead since its founding. All in “self defense” right?

“We are accepting of all religions and you cannot be discriminated against for your religion according to the first amendment. “—Just because that is what the first amendment says does not mean that Muslims are not being discriminated against. This is one of many articles highlighting discrimnation that Muslims face in the USA. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/29/muslim-discrimination-cas_n_842076.html

Yet nothing you said changes the fact that many laws, not just same sex marriage, not only mention God in them but follow many biblical commandments as law. If there was such a separation of church and state then such laws would not exist at all. In some states you can not even hold political positions unless you are Christians. Even if same sex laws may be soon overruled, that does not change that now only a few states allow such unions.

Does not support your claim. For starters it is a blog post, but most interestingly it is trying to lay claim to the slave trade and plantation deaths as part of jihad deaths. That is an inaccurate claim and thus your 120 million falls short if at all because plantation deaths are the result of white American slave holders and owners not Muslims. In the Buddhist category it is stated that they did not keep up with war, so my question is how did they account for how many died as a result of jihad and otherwise?

The holy land did not have any strong Christian sites until the 4th century thanks to Constantine I. Today one of those sites so happens to be home to branches such as Protestants and Roman Catholicism, but I don’t see where it has been stated that it was Roman Catholicism period. So far research seems to point to the holy land being home to Jews. Many of which were ran out and forbidden to enter the city thanks to Constantine. Muslims allowed them to reenter the city soon after they took it in 638.

When Christians sought to retake the city, they slaughtered a majority of the city and lead to a great decline in population. The holy land actually prospered under Muslim rule.

Wow. Stop and listen to what you are saying. You are trying to excuse the slaughter of innocent women and children. That is sick. The Crusaders also massacred Jewish women and children in their campaign to “take back” the Holy Land. How in the world can that possibly be an “act of self-defense”?

@Kiwi so are you…270 million people…Islam took the Holy land first, whether there was strong influence or not Islam still conquered it and drove back the Christians as well as outside of that era were there mass slaughterings. How about all the Islamic terrorist attacks that you hear about today, you are trying to defend that? How about your prophet, all the bad things he did. Should I point those out. Here is a website for proof of that.http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbworld.aspx?pageid=8589953043

@sharinalr I didn’t mean there wouldn’t be discrimination as in “Haha” sort of thing, I meant it as discrimination as you cannot be denied your basic fundamental rights. I as a christian sometimes face discrimination in my country that is base off of our teachings. However, you cannot deny someone rights of a citizen because of their discrimination. Everybody faces some form of discrimination at some point.

What state can you not hold a political position in if you aren’t Christian…never heard of that, the only place I could think of is near the Bible belt and I don’t even think that is true. Yes, you want to know why that is? The founding fathers were Christian and believed the Christian teachings had the best moral doctrines for a society/nation. It doesn’t say anywhere you must be a Christian or you can’t be a citizen. We are based off of Christian teachings because the teachings have proper moral standards, imagine if our country was based off of atheisms moral code, hint, they don’t have one. Speaking of which, where does Islam get its moral standard if man is not made in the image of Allah, your moral framework comes to you from where? Okay, but if you are honest with yourself, you would realize that eventually all states will allow same sex marriage.

“I didn’t mean there wouldn’t be discrimination as in “Haha” sort of thing, I meant it as discrimination as you cannot be denied your basic fundamental rights.”—-I didn’t say or think you did meant it in a “Haha” way, but I did ask you to clarify in the comment above in which you went on to say “We are accepting of all religions and you cannot be discriminated against for your religion according to the first amendment.” You never clarified. At any rate the link I posted does show that Muslims are largely discriminated against, so it suggests that the USA is not accepting of all religions. Furthermore this link suggests that basic rights are being denied to Muslims http://twocircles.net/2013oct24/legitimate_democratic_rights_muslims_are_denied.html#.VUg2FtLF_ng

I am not sure how you see basic rights, but no one has the right to be harassed because of their religion. Something Muslim women face here as a result of wearing the hijab.

“What state can you not hold a political position in if you aren’t Christian…never heard of that, the only place I could think of is near the Bible belt and I don’t even think that is true.”—-Quite a few. http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas3.htm

“The founding fathers were Christian and believed the Christian teachings had the best moral doctrines for a society/nation.”—Not all of the founding fathers were christian, so who exactly gave off the idea that Christian teachings were best moral doctrines? I wager more social pressures seeing as the majority of the people were Christians. Either way it does not change the fact that Christianity is way to intertwined in the laws to simply try to write it off as a separation of church and state. Atheist have more morals than you might thing and it proves you do not need religion to be moral or of good character. So religion was not needed to implement common sense and good judgement.

“Okay, but if you are honest with yourself, you would realize that eventually all states will allow same sex marriage.”—I have been honest this whole time. Me being honest has nothing to do with the reality that each state has the right to deny or accept same sex marriage. Whether it becomes country wide or not is a matter for the future and one in which no one really knows how it will come about or how soon. Either way we are talking about right now not right somewhere in the future.

“On that “blog post” it was written by Bill Warner.”—-It being a blog post was not the big issue. I don’t think he has thoroughly studied in the manner he claims and posting all his credentials does not change a lacking in the area he wrote about in that post. Trying to law the lives of plantation slaves on the Arabs is like trying to blame a butterfly for a tsunami in japan for flapping his wings.

“The Highest estimate of people killed during the crusades is 3 million, and that is being incredibly generous.”—-not sure your point.

“If you take out the two world wars alone because the U.S. is not a Christian state, it goes from 113.8 million to 52.3 million…either way its not anywhere near 270 million.”—That is not something I really care about as that frankly was not the point of my contention nor the point of the post.

“P.S. I will try to come on as much as I can. But I am busy so.”—You don’t have to explain to me when you can and can not post and for what reason. That is not my business or my concern.

@sharinalr Fundamental rights in the Constitution of the United States of America aka “Inalienable rights” are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. You cannot be killed because you are a Muslim, in Muslim countries you can be killed for being a Christian. Liberty, you have the same freedoms as long as they are within the boundaries of the law if you are a Muslim, not the same if you are a Christian in an Islamic country. Pursuit of happiness, if you are a Muslim you are denied that right. And notice how it says “pursuit of” not just happiness, just because you can pursue happiness doesn’t mean you always will be, Muslims are not denied the right to pursue it, just because they aren’t always happy. On a side note, if you want to prove to me America is a christian country (which you would have to in order to support the claim that Christians are more violent than Islam which is the big issue), you can’t just prove only Muslims are discriminated against, you would have to prove only Christianity is accepted in terms of fundamental/inalienable rights to show that we are a christian nation.

There’s harassment everywhere, people are bullied all the time, I have been made fun of aka harassed for my beliefs.

Okay well my bet would be those laws stating you have to be christian to hold office will soon be repealed, and, again, where is it different in Islamic nations?

Okay most were though, and of course if there is going to be a majority rule, the majority would have their laws passed. I never said separation of church and state was intended to be the way it is today, they still wanted Christian teachings in all of the laws, but to say we are a christian nation is so far fetched, we are not even close, if we were why do today Christians still feel discriminated against if we are such a Christian nation? But where did the atheists get their common sense and moral judgement from, hint, please don’t say subjective morality, its not, because then you have to justify to me that Hitler, Sadam Hussein, Stalin, KKK, Khmer Rouge, Boxer Rebellion, Red Guard Rebellion, all the violence that goes on today with drugs, all of those things would have to be justified because that was what their morals were. If moral reasoning can be purely subjective, you have absolutely nothing from stopping anybody to choose to just zing one through your forehead and say thats their answer, how would you stop that?

Okay 37 out of 50 states allow same sex marriage, so if that is majority, and it completely goes against Christian teachings, how can you use that to say we are a Christian nation when only 13 states out of 50 abide by the original Christian teachings.

Not your point? What was your point then? I have given you proof America is not Christian, and proof on the topic of this whole blog that Islam is much more violent than Christianity. About the 3 million during the crusades, you are claiming that we are so bad, look at your own religion. And about the 52.3 million, how can you not care, that is proof of this whole blog post Islam is much more violent?

I know what fundamental rights are and it does not support what you claimed earlier, which is they can not be discriminated against. Obviously they can be and are. Furthermore Muslims have been killed because they were Muslims in the USA. To say they can not is a gross misuse of words that do not bold well for your claim. It does not matter what the constitution says, because these people still experience it here. Tons of stories and cases are available to see this taking place by USA citizens.

“n a side note, if you want to prove to me America is a christian country (which you would have to in order to support the claim that Christians etc…..”—It was never my goal to prove any of this at all or disprove it for that matter. It was an extremely inaccurate conclusion you came to. My goal through question and clarification was to correct some of the inaccurate statements you made (https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/are-christians-more-violent-than-muslims/#comment-283284) and address the idea of Christian commandments having such a heavy influence on laws in the united states while people still lay claim to separation of church and state. In many of those cases you seemed unaware of how much influence Christianity had on laws. You further try to explain this away by saying that the founding fathers were christian. Not all of them were. Which then brings the excuse that Christian principles are good and moral. Yet none of this seems to address my original question or idea of if USA is not a christian state then why do so many laws follow christian commandments. Can one claim to not be a Christian nation, yet still follow Christian biblical laws?

“But where did the atheists get their common sense and moral judgement from, hint, please don’t say subjective morality, its not, because then etc”—-It is called using common sense and good character. A person who is an atheists can have good character without having to rely on Christian values. KKK are of christian religion by the way and used God and scripture as a means for what they did. Hitler was christian depending on the wind. Your problem is you believe that religion has so much root on what people do and how people act, yet many of the most racist groups alive were and are Christians.

“Okay 37 out of 50 states allow same sex marriage, so if that is majority, and it completely goes against Christian teachings, how can you use that to say we are a Christian nation when only 13 states out of 50 abide by the original Christian teachings”—-I did not use that to say we are a Christian nation. It was originally an example of Christian commandments having influence on the law.

“Okay but you are just claiming something, that he did not do proper research, but you have no basis for that.”—The link you presented was not a show of 30 years of research. The link you presented was a list of books he read that had that information in it. What part are you not getting? That is clear basis that he did not do research beyond reading a book, which is something anyone can do. That is not 30 years of studying Islam. What is it you think I was suppose to prove? I simply saw fit to present the contradictions or inaccuracies in your statements. The issues are as follows a) You ignore anything that does not support your claim. B) We are several posts in and you have come to the conclusion that I am arguing something I am not. C) Even after explaining somethings to you, you still go on with what you want to see and believe I said.IE providing links that still don’t support your claim and still lacking in detailed research with realistic estimates.

I know Arabs enslaved blacks, but what does that do to prove the point you made above? Nothing.

“Not your point? What was your point then?”—My point was clear in my first post, but it was addressed in other parts of this comment.

“proof on the topic of this whole blog that Islam is much more violent than Christianity”—-The question of this blog is actually a rhetorical one. Which was meant to point out hypocrisy, so you really did not address the point at all. That is neither here nor there to me. You provided some numbers, but you failed to be able to distinguish between Islamic conquest vs actual jihad. As I stated they are not the same thing and adding them into one to make a number is no different than making world war I and world war II christian wars.

@Kiwi yes I actually can read. If I couldn’t how would I be able to respond to your posts with actual words? I am justifying it the sense that if the Muslims did it in self-defense, then the Christians must have too. You have to either justify both or say both were wrong, you cannot say one is okay and the other is not. Whether it’s self defense or revenge the bottom line is Christians had it first, Muslims took it, Christians got it back. Do I actually believe that going out and killing 3 million people can be justified in any case if not throughout a war, a direct revelation from God, etc…? No. And even of those cases, the only one I think would be justifiable would be a direct revelation from God (and not claiming to have one, but actually receiving one) because he gave life to us all and is totally just in taking our life away by any means he chooses because we have sinned against him.

The point I am trying to make to you, which I am sort of surprised you haven’t gotten yet, is how can you sit there and claim the Christians are so bad, without pointing out all of the bad things the Muslims have done as well?

By the way your insults don’t hurt, so you might as well stop.

@sharlinalr But is that a direct act of the government, or radical people. If you have proof it is the government please provide it.

Okay but to say there is no separation of church and state is the same as that we are a Christian nation because church and state would be combined. You obviously did not read what I said, I said most were, not all. Again, you have the wrong conclusion, I understand all of our laws, or at least most of them are similar to Christian teachings.

“Which then brings the excuse that Christian principles are good and moral. Yet none of this seems to address my original question or idea of if USA is not a christian state then why do so many laws follow christian commandments.”
So let me get this straight. What you are saying is that it is an excuse to say Christian laws are moral, but our country is “based” on those teachings, so therefore the U.S. laws aren’t moral. The laws are good laws for a society, that is why they were used aside from the fact most founding fathers were Christian. And you obviously have no clear understanding of separation of church and state. If we were a Christian state, it would be illegal to even practice another religion in the U.S. because everyone would be forced to be Christian. Just because there is discrimination does not make practicing Islam illegal. Read this. It very clearly explains why the U.S. is not a christian state. By the way, in there it says in article 4 religious tests for political office are prohibited, so all those states that have religious tests for public office, those laws are automatically nullified because the Federal Government has overruled those.https://www.au.org/resources/publications/is-america-a-christian-nation

Again, yes, discrimination. Again, not the government, some radical american that wasn’t following the law. Again, Isis? Al Qaeda? What do you say to that and the discrimination going on in Islamic countries?

Common sense? If Hitler and the KKK had common sense, they would automatically know what they were doing was bad and not do it no matter what religion told them. And there is no justifiable evidence in the Bible that claims they have the right to do those things and/or be racist, it is their misinterpretation (whether purposely or accidentally) or they have a distorted Bible.

“I did not use that to say we are a Christian nation. It was originally an example of Christian commandments having influence on the law.” If they had an influence on the law then why is gay marriage legal when the Bible tells us very clearly marriage is to be between a man and a woman.

Okay prove to me all of those books are false. What did I ignore? Look, I didn’t claim that so that is your false conclusion. I am giving evidence others have concluded. If you want to argue that the evidence is false, why are you coming to me if it’s not my evidence? Go to him, and prove to him he is wrong then you will have every right in justifying the fact that my evidence that I got from him and have given to you is inaccurate. But you cannot just tell me his basis is inaccurate because I don’t know every basis he has, just like you don’t. We may have some, but not all.

Okay so Christians are some of the most racist people, but arabs aren’t even though they enslaved blacks too? And my point is, with the modern day slavery we know, there will be death and maltreatment.

Hypocrisy? You mean the hypocritical statement that Christians are more violent historically than Muslims? Sorry I have the words confused, the bottom line is Islam has killed 270 million people and until you can give me proof all of his basis’ were wrong without saying his post has no evidence of his credentials or his source is only other books, I have no reason to believe you. Just because they aren’t mentioned doesn’t mean he doesn’t have them. And if he doesn’t have those credentials, prove it.

Since I apparently have misunderstood all of your original points because I suck at interpreting my native language, I want you to state all of your points clearly, and I will try to address them.

Given your lack of reading comprehension, I’ll take that as a “no”. You called the Crusades an “act of self-defense” and when I pointed out that they slaughtered women and children (obviously not self-defense), you shifted the goalposts and tried to excuse it, which is disgusting. I am surprised that you decided not to explain why you think the Crusaders massacring Jews constitutes self-defense. At first, I thought it was because you couldn’t think of an answer, but now I realize it’s because you were too stupid to even understand that simple point.

“But is that a direct act of the government, or radical people. If you have proof it is the government please provide it.”—I never said it was the direct act of government and as far as the claim of yours that I am disputing you did not either. You are now trying your best to switch the goal post and I am going to do my part to redirect you to your claim. A person can be discriminated against without the use of government. Your claim has been proven to be false.

“Okay but to say there is no separation of church and state is the same as that we are a Christian nation because church and state would be combined.”—Where did I say that? Do quote me saying this? I said it several times now that christian commandments are heavily intertwined in American laws, which it is. You obviously did not read or comprehend what I said, so I find it hard to believe you have a grasp on the laws let alone what is going on in this conversation. You changed your position on the founding fathers once I corrected you.

“So let me get this straight. What you are saying is that it is an excuse to say Christian laws are moral, but our country is “based” on those teachings, so therefore the U.S. laws aren’t moral. “—Nope that is not what I am saying, but I do see you as using this to deflect from the actual point or perhaps this is again a moment where you miss the point. My point is saying Christians laws are moral does not address the question and only is an excuse for not addressing it.

” And you obviously have no clear understanding of separation of church and state. If we were a Christian state, it would be illegal to even practice another religion in the U.S. because everyone would be forced to be Christian.”—Yet I never said the USA was a Christian state, so you are presenting an straw man. Also you have no idea what separation of church and state means. It does not mean you can’t practice another religion. It is in regard to the separation of church from political involvement. It is meant to prevent the church from having heavy influence on laws, but says nothing of not allowing other religions. DUH.

“Just because there is discrimination does not make practicing Islam illegal. “—More deflection on your part. You claimed they could not be discriminated against which still remains false. Trying to now say they can’t be discriminated for practicing Islam is not something I said they could be discriminated against for so yet another straw man argument.

“By the way, in there it says in article 4 religious tests for political office are prohibited, so all those states that have religious tests for public office, those laws are automatically nullified because the Federal Government has overruled those.”—–That does not change the fact that they are still on the books and can be enforced if a state so chooses to.

“Again, Isis? Al Qaeda? What do you say to that and the discrimination going on in Islamic countries?”—I say this is another deflection tactic.

“Common sense? If Hitler and the KKK had common sense, they would automatically know what they were doing was bad and not do it no matter what religion told them. And there is no justifiable evidence in the Bible that claims they have the right to do those things and/or be racist, it is their misinterpretation (whether purposely or accidentally) or they have a distorted Bible.”—You claimed that religion was the basis for people having common sense and good character and that without it (Atheist) they would do whatever. Obviously that is not true for the KKK or Hitler.

“If they had an influence on the law then why is gay marriage legal when the Bible tells us very clearly marriage is to be between a man and a woman.”—Gay marriage did not become legal in some states until recently. It is not fully legal. The mere fact that it was that way to begin with show christian influence.

“Okay prove to me all of those books are false. What did I ignore?”—I did not say all the books were false. I said, several times now, that the book blaming the death of slaves on the plantation on Muslims was a misplacement seeing as slave death was the result of white America.

Look, I didn’t claim that so that is your false conclusion. I am giving evidence others have concluded. If you want to argue that the evidence is false, why are you coming to me if it’s not my evidence?”—You are the one presenting the information as if it is accurate, so of course I am going to address you with it.

“Go to him, and prove to him he is wrong then you will have every right in justifying the fact that my evidence that I got from him and have given to you is inaccurate. But you cannot just tell me his basis is inaccurate because I don’t know every basis he has, just like you don’t. We may have some, but not all.”—Why would I go to him when the link you posted are of books by other people not him? He just gave a list of the books and a summary of what the books said were the estimates. I am not judging all his basis. I am judging what you presented. Which does not indicated 30 years of research.

“Okay so Christians are some of the most racist people, but arabs aren’t even though they enslaved blacks too? And my point is, with the modern day slavery we know, there will be death and maltreatment.”—Another claim I never made. You are bouncing off the walls with every argument and not one seems to even be mine. I am a Christian so it would be beyond me to conclude myself as racist. Hell America has slavery, so you trying to say Arabs are racist and have slaves is hypocritical.

“Hypocrisy? You mean the hypocritical statement that Christians are more violent historically than Muslims? Sorry I have the words confused, the bottom line is Islam has killed 270 million people and until you can give me proof all of his basis’ etc.”—Dear you are just confused period and oddly enough you are a prime example of the type of hypocrisy that the post is talking about. I don’t need you to believe me, but here is the reality of the situation. You made the claims. You claimed he had all those credentials and you claimed he had all those numbers and you came up short. Correction you came up empty. Anyone with sense know that if a person had numbers to spare they would put them up. Also I never said he did not have those credentials I said it did not matter as his work does not show 30 years islamic research. Reading Comprehension is key here and this is the umpteenth time you have failed to comprehend what was said.

“Since I apparently have misunderstood all of your original points because I suck at interpreting my native language, I want you to state all of your points clearly, and I will try to address them.”—I already stated it clearly. You need to go back and read. Starting from the beginning with the serious of questions I asked you that you did not answer. But a person can read several times and still not get it if they do not have the ability to comprehend.

What a pointless and vapid article. A religion is always best demonstrated in the life of its founder. Jesus Christ was a moral, compassionate teacher who preached non-violence and love for even ones enemies. Mohammed was a brutal sociopath with a penchant for prepubescent wives and a doctrine of hate and violence for all but fellow Muslims. As such no violent act can ever rightly be called “Christian” whereas a Muslim waging violent jihad is simply being faithful to their ideological roots.

Are you serious? Your story has to be one of the most insane things I have read in years. What you describe as “Christian wars” aren’t Christian at all. And America is not a Christian country. Your spin implies a lot of untruth and you should be ashamed of yourself.

It is supposed to sound insane. I am mocking a style of thinking that many Americans apply to “Muslims” and “Blacks”. I did that by applying it to Christians, an in-group for most Americans. I flipped the script on Islamophobia to show how nutty and hysterical it is.

Yet Jesus teachings are new testament not old. Using the new testament as the sole teaching of Christianity is deceit and denial of the actual teachings, which in most cases were no different from Muslim teachings. White Americans have little or no knowledge of muhammad or the actual teaching yet Continue to spin half truths and lies.

First of all, if you didn’t know, the Crusades were a military campaign. Therefore it is safe to assume that they were an act of war. So why were these acts of war sanctioned? The Siege of Jerusalem was part of a military conflict which took place in the year 637 between the Byzantine Empire and the Rashidun Caliphate. It began when the Rashidun army, under the command of Abu Ubaidah, besieged Jerusalem in November 636. After six months, the Patriarch Sophronius agreed to surrender, on condition that he submit only to the Rashidun caliph. In April 637, Caliph Umar traveled to Jerusalem in person to receive the submission of the city. The Patriarch thus surrendered to him. The Muslim conquest of the city solidified the Arab control over Palestine, control which would not again be threatened until the First Crusade in the late 11th century. Thus, it came to be regarded as a holy site by Islam, as well as by Christianity and Judaism. Why do I point this out? To show it was an act of war after an act of war had already been committed against them. Between the 7th and 10th century the Muslims had conquered half of the Christian world, this included countries in which Christianity had been established for centuries, such as Egypt, southern France, southern Italy, Sicily, Spain, Syria, Turkey, etc. By the middle of the 11th century, Christianity had formally split between the Roman Catholic Church and the Byzantine Empire. In 1071, the Turks defeated the latter at the Battle of Manzikert. This left Constantinople exposed to attack from Muslims. Meanwhile, Christians were being ambushed during their pilgrimages to Jerusalem.

Again, why do I point all of this out. It is not just the Christians that can have a finger pointed at them for attacks both militarily or civilian wise. I am not justifying it in the sense of I actually believe it is okay, that many people dying is not okay and nor is it justifiable in the Bible. What I am doing is saying that if you are willing to ignore what Islam has done to civilians, (which I am implying that it is okay to you), then the same can be said for Christianity. And if you are not justifying the Islamic actions, then I say to you that, no, the crusades were not okay. Like I said earlier, either both can be justified, or neither. But you can’t excuse one, and condemn the other.

And also, it wasn’t just the crusades in which there were civilian casualties. Yes, maybe they had some of the worst, but it wasn’t the only…and no I am not using this reasoning to justify it.

@sharinalr

Your original questions as requested, although I should not have to go back and find them considering I was implying you completely confused me by your long and boring posts that I thought I answered but apparently didn’t and now you’re saying things like I don’t have an ability to comprehend correctly, but aside from that here they are.

What do you call religiously tolerant? And what say you of laws not only mentioning God but are mimics of biblical commandments? For example marriage is between man and woman.

So I will answer them again.

What I call religiously tolerant. The government cannot deny you your fundamental/inalienable rights. Whether or not other extreme people discriminate against you, that doesn’t change the fact that the government cannot. “More deflection on your part. You claimed they could not be discriminated against which still remains false.” Again, discrimination of fundamental rights, I’ve made that very clear. Unless you have proof of the government explicitly denying fundamental rights of Muslims, all you have proven to me is radical people discriminate against others, which happens all over the world.

“That does not change the fact that they are still on the books and can be enforced if a state so chooses to.” No, that is incorrect. If the federal government outlaws it, it is automatically nullified because the federal government has power over the states’ government. I have been saying this whole time that separation of church and state is exactly what you said. There is no church involvement in the U.S. Again, they are not Christian laws, you obviously did not look at the website I gave you. They are clearly secular laws. The U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular document. It contains no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ. In fact, the Constitution refers to religion only twice in the First Amendment, which bars laws “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and in Article VI, which prohibits “religious tests” for public office. Both of these provisions are evidence that the country was not founded as officially Christian and thus the laws are not based on Christian teachings. If you take some of Islam’s commandments, not all but some, those could be used for the foundation of a secular society. So since there is no mention of Christianity or Jesus, where is your basis that we are not Islamic or Jewish per se? On the Supreme Court Case ruling, here is what that judge later explained by what he meant. “But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that people are in any matter compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Neither is it Christian in the sense that all of its citizens are either in fact or name Christian. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.”

On to gay marriage. What does how recent the laws were put in place have to do with it? And yes, not nationally, but as a majority, it is legal. It does not show Christian influence. The traditional schools of Islamic law based on Qur’anic verses and hadith consider homosexual acts a punishable crime and a sin, and influenced by Islamic scholars such as Imam Malik and Imam Shafi. So since there is no mention of Christianity or Jesus in the Constitution, the supreme law of the U.S. where is your basis that it was Christianity?

Those were your original questions which I have answered again. Any remaining thoughts on those, please make it very clear and separate your ideas by paragraphs. Any new ideas you have, please state clearly and separate by paragraphs. If I am unsure of or confused by the point you are trying to get at, I will completely ignore the topic. It should not be my job to have to go back time and time again if I am supposedly completely misunderstanding you. For the sake of time and efficiency, you should have just restated all of your points like I asked, because in the end, you know the points you are trying to make better than I do especially when I am apparently having trouble understanding them.

It is better my posts be long, boring, and accurate than long and missing the points such as yours. At any rate considering you are the one confused it would be necessary for you to go back to clear up your confusion.
“What I call religiously tolerant. The government cannot deny you your fundamental/inalienable rights.”—Your original answer to that question is as follows: “We are accepting of all religions and you cannot be discriminated against for your religion according to the first amendment. “ Trying to change your answer and perfect it in a manner that keeps you from being wrong will not change what you originally said, nor will it change the fundamental fact that a law on the books does not change the act of discrimination from happening. Do you understand? Your statement implied that there is no way for them to ever be discriminated against (by anyone) because the first amendment stops that. False

“Unless you have proof of the government explicitly denying fundamental rights of Muslims, all you have proven to me is radical people discriminate against others, which happens all over the world.”—Why would I need to provide proof for something that is not my claim? Your claim was the one that got disputed. You are simply looking for an alternate outlet. Even your alternate route can be disputed in one of the links I provided above. It speaks on Muslim discrimination cases. Cases that are taken to court because they are in violation the first Amendment. I will happily quote it seeing as you failed to read it “Thomas Perez, the assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights, told the panel that anti-Muslim sentiment has brought a surge last May in the number of federal discrimination cases involving zoning boards and other local authorities that have acted to prevent mosques from opening in their communities.” Go ahead and spin another story to avoid being wrong.

“No, that is incorrect. If the federal government outlaws it, it is automatically nullified because the federal government has power over the states’ government.”—Wrong. A state can enforce it, but it can be overturned if it goes to higher courts. It is not automatically nullified.

“I have been saying this whole time that separation of church and state is exactly what you said.”—No, you have not been saying that the whole time. This is your idea of what church and state means and I quote “If we were a Christian state, it would be illegal to even practice another religion in the U.S. because everyone would be forced to be Christian.” In fact you only seem to claim to be on the same page as me after you are corrected. Another thing is the constitution does not have to explicitly mention Christianity or Jesus Christ to follow biblical commandments and laws(something I said for the umpteenth time). As to the supreme court ruling I already knew what the judge meant and if you knew what Christian nation actually meant then you would know what he is saying is in reference to the true definition of a christian nation. I explained that to another above with a link for clarity on the matter.

“What does how recent the laws were put in place have to do with it?”—It has to do with how said laws were widely and for a long time established foundations of bible commandments and ideas. The constitution was established a long time ago and yet these type laws and ideas were on the book just as long. That is the point. Heck if I repeat the point anymore I am just going to have to provide links to were I said it in the first place.

“It does not show Christian influence.”—Do you realize that it is from the bible that people got the idea or definition of what constitutes marriage? That is why it was illegal, because the bible viewed it so.

“where is your basis that it was Christianity”—Again go back and actually read what I said. Many laws follow biblical commandments and teachings. I said this several times now. Trying to hold on to it not saying Christianity or Jesus is faulty and is false. It also deflects from my actual claim or questions by trying to put sole law focus on the constitution. I said laws. You act as if states don’t have their own laws.

“Any remaining thoughts on those, please make it very clear and separate your ideas by paragraphs.”—Not only were they separated in paragraphs, but they also quoted what you said to avoid allowing you to back peddle. So it is obvious that clarity of my thoughts and ideas are not the issue so much as your inability to successful comprehend what you read. It is not my job to restate them and because you are the only one with the issue it is then your job to go figure out what is going on rather than creating straw men arguments and deflections.

As to the quote you presented of Justice Brewer, I note such convince in cutting off the full quote in favor of the portion that supports your belief. Allow me to quote in full:

“But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that people are in any matter compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Neither is it Christian in the sense that all of its citizens are either in fact or name Christian. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian Nation–in fact, as the leading Christian Nation of the world. This popular use of the term certainly has significance. It is not a mere creation of the imagination. It is not a term of derision but has substantial basis–one which justifies it’s use.

Wow, wow. There you go again, talking out of both sides of your mouth. I didn’t say massacring civilians was justified. That’s what I was condemning when you called the Crusades an “act of self-defense”. Are you really that stupid?

You still didn’t answer the question. How does massacring women and children constitute an “act of self-defense”? My wording was very specific yet over and over, you have chosen to dodge the question by shifting the goalposts and pretending not to have said something you did say.

If you have any sense of shame, you will answer the question: How does massacring women and children constitute an “act of self-defense”?

@sharinalr Or maybe since I keep getting “confused” on the same topics, maybe it is your job to clarify yourself for me.

“Trying to change your answer and perfect it in a manner that keeps you from being wrong will not change what you originally said, nor will it change the fundamental fact that a law on the books does not change the act of discrimination from happening. Do you understand? Your statement implied that there is no way for them to ever be discriminated against (by anyone) because the first amendment stops that. False”. I thought I clarified for you what I meant in the first place. “I didn’t say or think you did meant it in a “Haha” way”. That is what you said when I was clarifying myself in the very beginning, which you must also not have read because I maintained from the very beginning that it was meant as a fundamental right, very clearly if I might add, which you did not seem to understand. I said discriminated against, not discriminated against in any way shape or form, so that is a false conclusion, also considering you are not me, it is sort of odd you automatically know what I meant on every level with a sort of vague statement such as “discriminated against”. Discrimination according to the dictionary means “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things”. According to our laws here in the U.S., no one has been discriminated on the idea of fundamental rights for their religion from what I know. I meant it from the beginning as fundamental rights protected under the constitution since that is part of what we have been arguing about this whole time, the laws of the US, correct?

“Why would I need to provide proof for something that is not my claim?” Maybe if you would’ve just restated your claim since you confused me, I wouldn’t be and I could actually address your claim since I get everything wrong apparently. If you could just retype the link so I can look at it, that would be great.

“Wrong. A state can enforce it, but it can be overturned if it goes to higher courts. It is not automatically nullified.” Wrong. The Supremacy Clause, which is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as “the supreme law of the land.” It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state. So therefore, I do believe, it is automatically nullified and forces state judges to comply with the federal law if there is a contradiction. And either way, if the law the state has goes against the Constitution isn’t nullified right away, it will be proven wrong in a court of law later on, so it will still be nullified either way, whether automatically from the beginning, or later on.

“No, you have not been saying that the whole time. This is your idea of what church and state means and I quote “If we were a Christian state, it would be illegal to even practice another religion in the U.S. because everyone would be forced to be Christian.” I have maintained from the very beginning separation of church and state would mean the church has an influence on the laws. My bad, I didn’t research what the true definition of a christian state meant. “Again go back and actually read what I said. Many laws follow biblical commandments and teachings.” But, the same ten commandments are preached in Judaism and similar ones in Islam, those are both very good and similar commandments for a society. “Another thing is the constitution does not have to explicitly mention Christianity or Jesus Christ to follow biblical commandments and laws(something I said for the umpteenth time).” I know you have said it a lot. But if you say it doesn’t have to mention christianity or Jesus to be christian, then in the same way, it could be also jewish, or Islamic in not mentioning Islam or Muhammad, because both of those have similar laws. Now, I am not denying that they are not derived from Christianity, because most founding fathers were Christian. However, that does not change the fact that the laws are wholly secular, there is no mention of religion in the laws that I know of, other than the holding public office one which I have just proven to you can’t be a law. They have just borrowed a moral framework from religion that is taught in other religions as well, there is no mention of Christian laws. They are wholly secular, they just believed that those laws happened to be the best for a free society.

“Do you realize that it is from the bible that people got the idea or definition of what constitutes marriage? That is why it was illegal, because the bible viewed it so.” Yes, but again, it is not ONLY christianity, there are others that would say that as well, for example Judaism.

“Again go back and actually read what I said. Many laws follow biblical commandments and teachings. I said this several times now. Trying to hold on to it not saying Christianity or Jesus is faulty and is false. It also deflects from my actual claim or questions by trying to put sole law focus on the constitution. I said laws. You act as if states don’t have their own laws.” Again I will express that it could have been any religion for that matter, like Judaism, the exact same ten commandments. And also, since they were “Christian” laws, according to the New Testament, the period also which the constitution was written under, Jesus says anger and lust are a sin. So where are those laws in the Constitution? I never said states didn’t have their own laws, but the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and you have yet to give me a law not outlawed by the Constitution that shows a discrimination for religion.

“So it is obvious that clarity of my thoughts and ideas are not the issue so much as your inability to successful comprehend what you read.” But if I have been wrong on every single one, one not only has to question my comprehension, but your clarification, because in an argument, I have never been told I have been wrong on literally every single point.

Okay, but the point remains, that they are moral laws. There is no mention of religion one way or another, they are strictly moral laws that happen to come from Christianity.

“Or maybe since I keep getting “confused” on the same topics, maybe it is your job to clarify yourself for me.”—There are several posts filled with clarification. At this point it is no longer my job to do this for you. Trying to make it someone else problem to fix and cater is ridiculous. When you cut your finger on paper do you then blame the paper?

” I thought I clarified for you what I meant in the first place etc.”—I just finished quoting what you said in the first place and in the first place and here is where your follow up clarification tactic falls short. You claimed that could not be discriminated against according to the first Amendment. This does not say who they can not be discriminated by. Even in following up “clarification” you never said who can not discriminate them or who can. When I presented contradictory evidence is when you decided to claim “The government can’t.” I even pointed out to you some posts up the same thing and here you are trying to claim to be clear when in fact you never was on this simple aspect. What this became is your switch the goal post moment and think yourself witty enough to slide in change without notice.

“I didn’t say or think you did meant it in a “Haha” way”. “—Do you know what “haha” means? It is an indication of laughter in my book and my response was letting you know that I did not think you were joking in your response. Do you understand?

“I said discriminated against, not discriminated against in any way shape or form, so that is a false conclusion, also considering you are not me, it is sort of odd you automatically know what I meant on every level with a sort of vague statement such as “discriminated against””—I did not say you said that, but I was clear that you implied such. I don’t need to be you to see clearly what you were implying and it is likely you implied it because you thought you would be able to prove it or at the very most I would not be able to.

“According to our laws here in the U.S., no one has been discriminated on the idea of fundamental rights for their religion from what I know. “—You mean from what you choose to know. I quoted and printed proof of that. You just would rather ignore it. This makes me wonder if you know what fundamental rights are. They are not just about religion alone. So basically what I get from this is you want to now try and single out other fundamental rights as a effort to bypass the actual Muslim discrimination that is going on? If a government is denying the right to build a Mosque because of Islamic religion then not only is that discrimination of religious rights, but it is simply discrimination.

“Wrong. The Supremacy Clause, which is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as “the supreme law of the land.””—How does it feel to know you just proved my point? Did you enjoy wasting the typing time?

“But, the same ten commandments are preached in Judaism and similar ones in Islam, those are both very good and similar commandments for a society.”—-Yet I am not referring to only the ten commandments, now am i?

“I know you have said it a lot. But if you say it doesn’t have to mention christianity.”—You mean similar commandments? Then present such similar commandment that so happens to be one of the U.S laws? At any rate the point still remains the same. They follow christian commandments and they are build on christian foundation. So trying to pass it as what it could be is not what it is considering all of them were here before a wave of any other religion was present.

“However, that does not change the fact that the laws are wholly secular, there is no mention of religion in the laws that I know of, other than the holding public office one which I have just proven to you can’t be a law.”—You seem to not know a lot don’t you? Have you ever consider researching state laws? A lot of them actual do mention God and other religious references. You have not proven that it can’t be a law. It is a law because it is still on the books. You just presented something that can nullify it, but before it can be nullified it must go through the court system and if it could not be a law it would not get that far.

“gain I will express that it could have been any religion for that matter, like Judaism, the exact same ten commandments. And also, since they were “Christian” laws, according to the New Testament, the period also which the constitution was written under, Jesus says anger and lust are a sin. So where are those laws in the Constitution? “—And I will express that it could not have been any religion. Was Judaism religion prominent or part of society when it was written? No it was not, but Christianity was and it is a clear fact for anyone who knows history that the laws were based on it. I said many laws not all. Again with the straw men.

“I never said states didn’t have their own laws, but the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and you have yet to give me a law not outlawed by the Constitution that shows a discrimination for religion.”—Why are you always trying to get me to present a claim or prove one I never made? My claim was as follows “In some states you can not even hold political positions unless you are Christians.” You claimed there were no such laws, did you not? So where are you now getting this idea that I must provide for you laws that show religious discrimination? I never made such claim and yet like a washing machine you are on rinse and repeat of something I said several times was not my claim and one that you can read is not my claim. Yet you wonder why I state you have reading comprehension issues? Even if the constitution is the supreme law it does not change what I actually did claim or the fact that you have not really been able to disprove it. These things are on the books of states whether you like it or not.

“But if I have been wrong on every single one, one not only has to question my comprehension, but your clarification, because in an argument, I have never been told I have been wrong on literally every single point.”—If you are banking it on no one every telling you that you were wrong, then you either have not been in debates much or your time spent with people telling you that you are right has warped your mind. Debating outside of your comfort zone helps you to get better and become more aware of certain things. Misunderstandings happen, but blaming it on others clarification because you refuse to believe it is you will do more harm than good.

“Okay, but the point remains, that they are moral laws. There is no mention of religion one way or another, they are strictly moral laws that happen to come from Christianity.”—There was never a point to be made on whether they were moral or not. Not only that laws do mention religion. Just because you cherry pick which ones you want to read does not mean it is not out there.

@sharinalr Look, this post I am not going to debate anything, because even on my last post, you have said I have some of my points were STILL not what you were arguing about. So I am giving you one last chance. You will post all of your ORIGINAL points, each separated and stated clearly. If you fail to do so in any way shape or form, I will not respond to you. If you insult me in any way shape or form, I will not respond to you. You are correct, I am starting to get a little fed up with you wasting my time. I am telling you right now, this is your last chance, or I am done. If I am misinterpreting your points 5 and 6 times after I have read all of your posts, then I am totally stupid (which isn’t the case considering I am a 4.0 student and got a 28 on my ACT in my freshman year of high school) or it is a combination of my misunderstanding and your misguiding. I don’t care if you think you’ve made yourself clear, you haven’t if I’ve read all of your posts 20 times and still don’t know what you’re saying. You give me your original points now, or I am done. I really didn’t even want to respond to the original posts or your posts in the first place but I decided to give a little more than minimal effort into my posts, which I now regret. I’m telling you, again, this is your last chance to tell me what your original points are before I leave.

Then you will not be responding to this because my next question is going to be if you can read? In the paragraph above I not only told you my points, but actually went on to quote atleast one verbatim. I have always stated my points several times over and you have always just went on a rant to focus on what you concluded my point was. It is called missing the point.

“then I am totally stupid (which isn’t the case considering I am a 4.0 student and got a 28 on my ACT in my freshman year of high school) or it is a combination of my misunderstanding and your misguiding.”—Oh it is obvious that you are a product of the American educational system. High school is not that darn hard and the curriculum fails to adequately teach simple comprehension skills. At any rate, your problem is and has been that you are creating a point you believe I am arguing and asking me to prove it, even after I repeatedly told you that it is not my point and RESTATING my point no less. You can read the point 20 times and still not connect the dots. I can tell you several times and it still not dawn on you because you do not have the ability to comprehend. That is not my problem but yours.

@sharinalr Alright, I’m done and I’m glad. If you stated your points so much I don’t know why I was getting them wrong (maybe because you change them or you bring up so many new points to argue about I get lost in all the nonsense or you quite frankly suck at stating a point). And apparently its just too hard for you to restate each point without all the extra gibberish (again one has to wonder why…maybe because there is so many?) which just proves you’re lazy and not trying to actually help your argument because if you had just restated them instead of making me read the same things 20 times over you would have actually been able to prove I was talking about the wrong subjects, if I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying, and you tell me to read the same thing over and over again, I am still going to misinterpret it. I would think that would be obvious to someone who is apparently as smart as you. And talk about original points, my original point was to prove these numbers wrong…which they are because of the two world wars because America is not Christian according to our law, which I have confirmed with several other people. So my original point still remains and you have still yet to prove America is a Christian nation according to our laws. So you have not even addressed my original point in a sense.

“Oh it is obvious that you are a product of the American educational system.” Yup, 14th in the world…your point?

“High school is not that darn hard” It is when you’re taking college classes.

I asked you to just state a point without all the extra, and you couldn’t do it. You had to go into all of this stuff about how I can’t comprehend you etc when you could of just had patience and restated it like most normal christians do (which you claim you are). Instead, you had to get an attitude about it so I am done. Have fun believing the fallacy of America being a Christian nation, just don’t try to spread that lie. May God bless you and provide you with safety and health etc. Adios!

“If you stated your points so much I don’t know why I was getting them wrong (maybe because you change them or you bring up so many new points to argue about I get lost in all the nonsense or you quite frankly suck at stating a point).”—Or it could be as I stated repeatedly. You don’t have reading comprehension. With out this key factor it is really hard for a person to grasp a point let alone Know it when they see it. Not only that much of the extra stuff brought in was you. You tried every angle possible to get around being wrong. Moving the goal posts as Kiwi pointed out. It was only when backed into a corner that you either repeated what I already had said or decided to avoid the questions altogether.

” And apparently its just too hard for you to restate each point without all the extra gibberish (again one has to wonder why…maybe because there is so many?) “—What sense does it make to restate a point when there are 8 posts above stating those same points? I personally had only 4 points total. All the extra gibberish was what you added to deflect.

“which just proves you’re lazy and not trying to actually help your argument because if you had just restated them instead of making me read the same things 20 times over you would have actually been able to prove I was talking about the wrong subjects, if I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying, and you tell me to read the same thing over and over again, I am still going to misinterpret it.I would think that would be obvious to someone who is apparently as smart as you.”—-Actually this exchange is only proof of your laziness and your ability to lie. You spent most of the time asking me to prove or disprove YOUR claims (many of which you concluded I made). You are the confused one yet you want me to go back and point out to you where your confusion is. You are literately whining about it. This alone not only shows laziness, but an inability to think for oneself. Though the absolute worst part is that I quoted and explained. So really it comes down to can you read? Reading comprehension is one issue, but I have to wonder if you can read period if you are missing quotes with quotation marks and verbatim of what I said or claimed. My points.
You then went on to say you read my posts 20 times, but I wonder how so considering you claimed to a) be busy and b) that they were so long and boring that you got confused. The mere fact that you are asking me to disprove or prove your claims is a sign that you are lazy. You made several claims (many of which you concluded I made) and all you wanted to do was sit back while someone provides to you things to prove you wrong. Yet when proved wrong you just switched goal posts. I basically was doing your work and explaining it to you. In a few noticeable cases you proved my case for me. It was very obvious that you were never going to get it with your lack of reading comprehension and that no matter how much I pointed out the issue you just were not smart enough to get it. For example I told you that you have reading comprehension for about 3 posts now and you are still confused on what the problem is.

“And talk about original points, my original point was to prove these numbers wrong…which they are because of the two world wars because America is not Christian according to our law, which I have confirmed with several other people.”—-You tried to make several points in your original posts. That was only one. No one said your numbers were wrong or anything about those wars being Christian wars, so why address something that a person does not disagree with? Do you realize how dumb that sounds? You were wrong about the point of the post, You were wrong about Muslims not being discriminated against, and you were wrong about America laws not being influenced by christian commandments and foundations, you were wrong about god and religion not being in laws (all my points by the way), but no one said a thing to you about you being wrong about the world wars not being christian wars. This is what I mean by deflections, goal post changing, and reading comprehension. A person disagrees with you on something and you take it to mean they disagree on other things (usually things you feel you can not be proven wrong in), yet the kicker is no one said anything about it. It does nothing but make you look desperate to have that one thing to say you were right. According to the definition of a Christian nation (Link above) America is. 1892 Supreme ruling supports that same definition in Judge Brewer’s explanation. The reason that definition applies has nothing to do with what the laws says and everything to to with the foundation and commandments that are so heavily intertwined in those laws and influence them.

“Yup, 14th in the world…your point?”—-That it explains why you have reading comprehension issues and why you expect people to show you everything. No child left behind.

“It is when you’re taking college classes.”—-Those classes were not that hard either.

“I asked you to just state a point without all the extra, and you couldn’t do it. You had to go into all of this stuff about how I can’t comprehend you etc when you could of just had patience and restated it like most normal christians do (which you claim you are).”—–You did not ask me. Asking me is “could you please restate your point because I am not getting it?” You stated “So I am giving you one last chance. You will post all of your ORIGINAL points, each separated and stated clearly.” This is you telling me what I am going to do or else. Do you think if you shame me that I will just cower over and do? Funny. It is not that I could not do it, but that I refuse to do it. After 8 posts of the same points being repeated, and you still confused it became obvious that you are either willfully obtuse or seriously have reading comprehension issues. I claim to be a Christian, but I never claimed to be a normal christian (as if they are monolithic) and I most certainly never claimed to be a fool.

“Instead, you had to get an attitude about it so I am done. Have fun believing the fallacy of America being a Christian nation, just don’t try to spread that lie. May God bless you and provide you with safety and health etc. Adios!”—-By definition it is https://www.joycemeyer.org/articles/america.aspx?article=defining_a_christian_nation), so at what point did it become a lie? Considering you said this above “My bad, I didn’t research what the true definition of a christian state meant.” It is pretty obvious that you don’t do the research to know what is or is not true. Can I assume your credibility on all that you said is shot? Should I see you as telling the truth and Judge Brewer as a liar? You know…the one you quoted half of in efforts to erase what he fully said. :)

Bottom line is you leaving this conversation is less about my points you claim I did not clarify, although evidence shows otherwise, and more about the fact that I was now questioning your points for you to provided proof.

Interesting comments here. Christianity versus Islam? People will justify their beliefs and there lies the root of unbearable stink – faith. Take Greed, mix it with a powerful demagogue (Putin, Khomenei, Sarah Palin, Stalin, Adolf Hitler, GWBush, Ben Laden, Saudi Oil (companies are people too) Ted Cruz and so forth), let them mix it with hate for a made up enemy (country, religion, man) and you heat up the most primitive instincts of mankind to do your bidding in wars and slaughter. Religion is pure man made mind control and never had another function and the brutality of Radicals in itself is Religion as much as Buddhism. 99 of 100 people are followers and will attach to a senseless, brutal, mindless, sick cause, preached by a demagogue like flies to horse dung. And they will justify it. With garbage about Christianity versus Islam or such stupidity (they will attack us, if we don’t attack them).
And don’t forget, you always need the enemy, or they don’t follow you. See Christianity versus Islam – the Muslims hate the Christians, because the Christians hate the Muslims – purfect and we are all buying at Walmart useless Chinese crap, which they use to build up the biggest military this world has ever seen – wait for 10 years, kabbum. But no war has ever made a dent in human population. And there is the real issue, all humanity has to live (or get extinct with) total overpopulation of this poor little planet and consequent destruction of rainforests and oceans. And all we see is tiny enemies with our tiny little brains made to follow leaders with tinier brains, infected by greed and lust for power. Fight your own faith and your urge to justify, think – don’t parrot.

This is one of the most pathetic attempts to whitewash Islam, by playing loose and easy with historical facts, that I have ever come across. You simply ignored most of Islam’s history to come up with this biased nonsense. Please recall that whatever part of the globe Islam entered, aside from the Arabian peninsula, it took over by force, at the cost of millions of lives. From Spain and Morocco to eastern Europe and India and Indonesia, this was the story. An estimated 80 million died during the conquest of India alone. And this does not even touch upon the brutal Muslim slave trade from Africa, which may have caused 50 million deaths along with the misery of those who actually survived their enslavement. and have you forgotten the Aramean and Armenian genocides? And let’s not forget that Muslims attempted to conquer Vienna as recently as 1683, for no reason but to expand Islam.

As for the atrocities you attribute to Christianity – what a reach! You really have to be a mental gymnast of some sort. Many of those wars had NOTHING to do with Christianity at all. I mean the Napoleonic wars, Mexican Revolution, the two World Wars, the Korean War, etc.

By the way, your comparison of murder rates is a joke, since most “honor” murders in Muslim countries are not treated as murders. In fact, most are not even reported.

In short, you are either a non-Muslim with a dhimmi attitude or a Muslim apologist without scruples. Either way you are a shameless liar and spin doctor. Learn the truth about Islam’s bloody history before you attempt aritcles like this.

To Lord of Milkwood:
“This post is a parody of how racists view blacks and Muslims. It has nothing to do with the merits of Christianity – Abagond is himself a Christian.”

I think he was serious although he would best answer that…but for some reason he left out the Armenian genocide by the Ottoman Turks (which was religiously motivated..) and the deaths caused by the Islamic slave trade.He certainly knows about both as he has covered them in other posts so why leave them out..? Also why the does he pin the deaths during the reconquista solely due to Christians…? Does he have a problem with Christian Europeans resisting imperialism…?

As for his final statement:
“Calling, say, the 9/11 terrorists “Muslim” is like calling Hitler “Christian”: true yet misleading. ”

Hitler privately was highly contemptuous of Christianity and actually stated he would have preferred Germans to be Islamic since he felt it was a more warlike religion, whereas the 9/11 killers clearly felt they would attacking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon for religious reasons.

As to Muslim slavery, that was left out by my source on democides, R.J. Rummel, at least as a separate line item. It should be added. I doubt it would shift the overall numbers much, and certainly not the conclusion, which does not depend on precise statistics.

I should do a post on the “250 million” that Muslims have killed, or whatever number it is you see repeated by Islamophobic websites.

As to Hitler, if you want to get into his personal beliefs, then, to be fair, you should do the same for all other leaders. My guess is that most of them were philosophically neither Christian nor Muslim but Machiavellian – no different than, say, Obama.

“Three years before the September 11 attacks, Al-Qaeda released a Fatwa, stating “We — with God’s help — call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.”

And multiple declarations in the aftermath by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri:

.
“In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful,
“Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory” [Quran 22:39]

“Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan.”[Quran 4:76]”

So unless you believe that the motivations of the direct operatives responsible for the 9/11 attacks were totally separate from those who organized, funded, directed, and lead the operation I think it’s clear it’s clear there was a religious motivation (along with other reasons..).

“As to Hitler, if you want to get into his personal beliefs, then, to be fair, you should do the same for all other leaders.My guess is that most of them were philosophically neither Christian nor Muslim but Machiavellian…”

Well here we are in agreement. I can also agree that Christian Europe before the Renaissance and Reformation was generally more violent and less tolerant than the Islamic world.

I asked you if you know what they felt and frankly your quotes do not give an eye opener into you or anyone else knowing what they felt. You can be fearful and still carry out acts.

Frankly your quotes are no different than group prayer before a battle. For examples soldiers prayed before going to war, but were they going to war in the name of God? Leaders have stated we must fight Muslims to save the Christians. Would that also be a religious war?

I have read things that Osama said himself and planned out from his writings and it point to more a political matter than a religious one.

As a side note if you are going to quote from the Quran please get it from the Quran. News outlets like to add there own touch to it. For example:

[Quran 22:39] Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory. http://quran.com/22
[Quran 4:76] Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah , and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of Taghut. So fight against the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan has ever been weak. http://quran.com/4

Who saidI asked you if you know what they felt and frankly your quotes do not give an eye opener into you or anyone else knowing what they felt.

For examples soldiers prayed before going to war, but were they going to war in the name of God?

Here’s one of the quotes again:call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.

You are of course free to believe that religion had nothing or little to do with the actions on 9/11 but the words of Al Qaeda operatives indicate otherwise to me. It’s sort of like arguing if the crusades had a religious motivation or not – such as dwelling on issues or plunder and power and ignoring the invocations from the Catholic church.

“As a side note if you are going to quote from the Quran please get it from the Quran. News outlets like to add there own touch to it. For example..”

I was quoting directly from the text in the Guardian article which supposedly a direct translation of Osama bin Laden’s translated letter (The Guardian is a British newspaper which tends to sympathize with the Islamic world..). Supposedly the translations were affirmed by Islamists in Britain. And for that matter I don’t see that the translation you provided was markedly different than the one provided by the Guardian. Religious texts are always subject to interpretation as you probably well know.

You are free to quote the quote as many times as you want, but it still does not answer the question of how they felt. By that logic you know how I feel about rainbows or cats based solely on what I choose to display in text. (FYI I say aww to cats but really just don’t like them).

“You are of course free to believe that religion had nothing or little to do with the actions on 9/11 but the words of Al Qaeda operatives indicate otherwise to me.”—-If I am not mistaken I did not say it had nothing to do with it and I never stated how much I believe religion played in it, but I certainly do not believe it plays as much of a part as most people seem to believe. Even in the link you provided his big beef was more a political one than a religious one and we can most certain look as writings from Osama and his generals to confirm this political beef.

“Religious texts are always subject to interpretation as you probably well know.”—I know this very well, but I am also well aware that news outlets love to sensationalize information. Which is actually what they did in the quotes you presented.

You are free to quote the quote as many times as you want, but it still does not answer the question of how they felt. By that logic you know how I feel about rainbows or cats based solely on what I choose to display in text.

Really uhh…rainbows aren’t sentient and I am quite sure that the 9/11 foot soldiers were capable of much higher intelligence and had a much greater understanding of the directives of al Qaeda than cats.

We just disagree.. that’s fine.

Which is actually what they did in the quotes you presented.

Which were part of the Osama bin Laden’s open letter supposedly vetted by Islamist scholars…. if you know of an Arabic scholar who believes that the letter was misreprented and has an alternate translation then I’ll read it.

I am not sure you are reading what I said. I never once said rainbows were a sentient, but I did say “By that logic you know how I feel about rainbows.” Emphasis on the how I feel. Not really sure how you concluded some idea that I think rainbows feel. Same with your logic behind cats. IT is not about how the cats feel either. Please reread the response.

It is quite obvious we disagree. No need to reiterate.

“Which were part of the Osama bin Laden’s open letter supposedly vetted by Islamist scholars…. if you know of an Arabic scholar who believes that the letter was misreprented and has an alternate translation then I’ll read it.”—Let us try reading what I said and not what you seem to feel I said. I said the parts you quoted were sensationalized. That is quite obvious seeing as the Quran itself says one thing and what they added on the news outlet are another. I said little on the letter as a whole. I would appreciate it if you do not misrepresent my argument.

“Whole lot of God in that text.. reminds me of the Papal Bull’s issued during the crusades”—-There is also a whole lot of political outrage and the involvement of America and it’s killing of their people.

Just read your link and it does not really change much of what I have said and will likely continue to say. It really is no different than a religious soldier praying before going to war. The difference….this guy wrote it down.

The mere fact that he wrote some of this stuff down is suspect in itself. I mean who writes down something as simple as remembering to smile? Though it still does not tell me or the next person how he felt. You are trying to apply a feeling that you think he has. Yet from the writing alone I gather he was empty. Especially seeing as he had to write down to look happy.

Exactly. Realistically christian soldiers pray all the time and if they are Mormon you can believe they are praying every second. They pray for safety and comfort and guidance before going into a war zone and killing people, but why do we not view them praying as religiously motivated, but let a Muslim pray beforehand for comfort and guidance then oh no we got religious motivation over here.

Is it possible we are being programmed to hate Islamic religion the same way the media is programming us to hate blacks or buy foreign products?

You raise a good point. The US military employs chaplains who lead group prayers for Christian soldiers but nobody ever calls the War on Terror a crusade because of that.

Oh, wait… George W. Bush called the wars he started in the Middle East a crusade. Is he a terrorist?

Have you ever noticed how the US president always says “God bless America” on national television but nobody reacts to it the same way they do when Muslims say “Allahu akbar”? The two are really no different. So is the president a religious fundamentalist?

I’ve also seen people refer to Reagan as a Christian warrior who waged a crusade against communism during the Cold War. Is he a militant Christian fanatic?

Hitler privately was highly contemptuous of Christianity and actually stated he would have preferred Germans to be Islamic since he felt it was a more warlike religion

If you want to talk about Hitler’s religious preferences, he was actually most admiring of Japanese Shinto because he saw it as nationalistic and militaristic. Worship of the emperor as a god was also a plus for him. If we take Hitler’s beliefs seriously, which nobody does, we should regard the Japanese as more violent than Muslims. But white Americans today don’t see it that way. East Asians are viewed as the meek, nerdy Model Minority whereas Muslims are viewed as crazy terrorists.

I don’t see Muslim suicide bombers as any different than Japanese kamikaze pilots. But one is feared more than the other due to political reasons: America is currently at war with the Islamic world.

Bit of an oversimplification. Japanese pilots were legitimate combatants; most were either pressured into doing kamikaze missions or did it out of a desire to protect their families from what they thought would be a brutal American occupation. Very few Islamist suicide bombers have such redeeming qualities. And I say this despite my respect for Islam and the Palestinian cause.

I’m afraid you are the one oversimplifying. Muslim “terrorists” are not accepted as legitimate combatants because they are not backed by state authority, unlike the American and the Israeli military. Muslim suicide bombers are also often pressured into missions or desire to protect their Muslim brothers and sisters from a brutal American or Israeli occupation.

Regardless of what you consider legitimate, Japanese kamikaze gave their lives in the name of their Emperor, whom they regarded as a god. Similarly, Muslim suicide bombers give their lives in the name of the God of Abraham. The reason Americans fear one but not the other is that one was subdued by conquest but not the other. That was my point.

I know that Muslim terrorists are not backed by state authority. That’s WHY I labelled them “illegitimate.”

You raise a good point about Japanese pilots giving their lives for the Emperor. Of course, since they were acting on behalf of the nation of Japan there was an element of nationalistic patriotism involved as well, but Hirohito was seen as a god until 1946 so that is a somewhat accurate comparison. However, Japan was not subdued by “conquest” – they were occupied for seven years, after which they regained their status as an independent and sovereign nation.

Therein lies the problem. America and Israel both kill civilians in the Middle East but their killings are considered legitimate only because their actions are backed by state authority. That is a racist double standard. Native Americans and Palestinians were forced to recognize these colonial entities at gunpoint. How is that legitimate?

Also, Japan is hardly a great example of an independent and sovereign nation. They still have a large American military presence.

I never said that the killing of civilians by states is legitimate or right; I never made such a moral judgment. I merely stated that INTERNATIONAL LAW recognizes American soldiers or Japanese pilots as lawful combatants. (I hesitate to apply the same label to Israel, as I do not think Israel has a right to exist, but that is neither here nor there.)

Japan is definitely independent and sovereign. It has an American military presence, but so does Great Britain.

I merely stated that INTERNATIONAL LAW recognizes American soldiers or Japanese pilots as lawful combatants. (I hesitate to apply the same label to Israel, as I do not think Israel has a right to exist

No, you did not. You condemned Muslim suicide bombing but at the same time, were more forgiving towards Japanese kamikaze based on a nebulous concept like “legitimacy”. You cited international law as a reason but then undercut your own argument by applying a double standard to Israel, which tells me that you don’t even take international law seriously. Israel is recognized by the UN.

Japan is definitely independent and sovereign. It has an American military presence, but so does Great Britain.

False equivalence. While America’s military presence in Britain was introduced by invitation, America’s military presence in Japan was introduced by force.

Israel is illegitimate because it was created by a bunch of Hungarians coming into Palestine (the real name of the land) and claiming it for themselves based on some Torah hocus-pocus. Said Hungarians (and Poles, Ukrainians, etc.) proceeded to displace the Palestinian people and fence them off, depriving them of rights, and resorted to terrorism against the British government in the area. Israel is a terrorist state, and has never shed that character, despite what Republicans might think.

Also, America’s presence in Japan is not by force. In 1952, Japan and the U.S. signed a Security Treaty whereby the Japanese gave the Americans PERMISSION to station troops there, for Japan’s own safety against the PRC. For the same reason, the U.S. stationed troops in Britain to help the UK defend itself against Hitler.

“their Muslim brothers and sisters from a brutal American or Israeli occupation.”—- Not only that can we not say they were pressuredoing by the extremists in the organization? They could have easily been told their families would be shamed, killed, etc if they did not comply.

America is illegitimate because it was created by a bunch of English coming into North America and claiming it for themselves based on some Bible hocus-pocus. Said English (and Dutch, Germans, etc.) proceeded to displace the Native peoples and fence them off, depriving them of rights, and resorted to terrorism against the British government in the area. America is a terrorist state, and has never shed that character, despite what Republicans might think.

I don’t see Muslim suicide bombers as any different than Japanese kamikaze pilots.

Well, I wasn’t aware that Japanese kamikaze pilots were still a threat. Most assuredly in 1941 – 1945 the Japanese were viewed as much more threatening than the large majority of the world’s muslims as the latter were either often neutral or allied with the US and Great Britain.

Another difference between the kamikaze pilots and most muslim bombers is the former exclusively attacked military targets.. the latter sometimes attacks military targets (which I think is legitimate..) but predominately (intentionally) attacks civilians.

My point about Japanese kamikaze and Muslim bombers is to illustrate that suicide attacks are not exclusively characteristic of any religion and are almost always used to achieve political aims. Religion is more of a tool used to manipulate people into carrying out such attacks.

“Its use is political and was invented by Iran during the proxy war it waged against Israel in Lebanon during the 80s, a little known fact.”—Quite interesting bit of information. Thanks I was not aware.

The use of suicide bombing was declared “haram” (un-Islamic) by Iran’s Shia Muslim ulema after Sunni Muslim suicide bombers began attacking Shias in the Iraq War. Basically, the same denomination of Islam that had invented suicide bombing issued a fatwa against it only when it began to be used against themselves.

If the acceptance of suicide bombing by Muslim clerics changed as easily as that, then that tells me that it had little to do with religious beliefs and more to do with politics and war.

“America is illegitimate because it was created by a bunch of English coming into North America and claiming it for themselves based on some Bible hocus-pocus. Said English (and Dutch, Germans, etc.) proceeded to displace the Native peoples and fence them off, depriving them of rights, and resorted to terrorism against the British government in the area. America is a terrorist state, and has never shed that character, despite what Republicans might think.”

Any comparison between the American Revolution and the Zionist terrorism is tenuous at best. The American Revolution occurred because the government in London was actively violating the colonists’ rights (Stamp Act, tea tax, the Intolerable Acts punishing Massachusetts) whereas the Zionists only revolted because the British weren’t letting Jews in Europe emigrate to Palestine. (Never mind that the Brits even offered to send Jews to Uganda – Uganda! – but no, the Jews had to have Palestine and they had to have it immediately.

Right, but there are some people whose motives are simply worse than others. For example, Osama bin Laden acted out of hate for America and Britain and liberal democracy. His goal was to establish a medieval, totalitarian caliphate. Would you give the “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” excuse for Hitler, who claimed to be fighting for Germany’s freedom from Jews?

So The Reconquista is a “Christian War”? The Muslims invade Spain, which at the time had a 100% Christian population, and when the Spanish kick them out, it´s a “Christian War”?

Exactly the same can be said about the Crusades, by the way. Last time I checked, the Muslims didn´t win Palestine in a bingo game either.

Also, the Nazis count as “Chistian”? In what planet, other than your own? You may care to check that, after Jews, and not by much, the second most numerous victim group of the Nazis were Christians, and specifically Catholics, specifically persecuted for their Christian condition.

You do, indeed, prove that everything is in the definitions, but not quite in the way you intended. Lopsided, much?

* The cultural climate in Nazi-Germany was greatly influenced by long-standing anti-Jewish sentiment held by both Catholics and Protestants. Indeed, this contempt for the “god-killers” goes back to the early days of Christianity and was if anything rekindled by Martin Luther, a German and seminal figure of the Protestant reformation.

Yes, there were Christian victims of the Holocaust, but fact is that the Nazis were by and large Christian.

Well, Like I always say to my friends… A day will come when the gentle decides to fight and the bully finds out he can’t even fight. Maybe these statistics should educate ISIS that when a Christian opponent rises up against them, they will be crushed… I am more violent but won’t fight now.

This article is absolutely moronic for a number of reasons. Shall I count the ways?

1. It clearly doesn’t count terrorist attacks in the homicide rate for Iraq. How do I know this? Because in 2013 (the year this article was written) 6378 people were killed in Iraq JUST BY TERRORIST ATTACKS.

Iraq has a population of 33.42 million. That means that if you only count people killed by terrorists (not counting murders for any other reasons) Iraq’s homicide rate would be 19 per 100,000 people, which is 6 times higher than the murder rate of ‘white America.’

2. It didn’t count the Syrian civil war which has been ongoing since 2013. That’s killed about 300,000 people in 4 years, so let’s say 75,000 a year. Syria only has a population of 22 million.

Do the math. That’s an awfully high death rate, don’t you think?

3. You list the Reconquista as a “Christian War” but that war was fought against Muslims who had invaded and conquered Spain. Why was the invasion of Spain not counted? Why was the Reconquista itself not counted as a Muslim war too, given their involvement?

4. You didn’t count the Muslim invasion of India in which tens of millions died. I assume this is because you didn’t know the Muslims invaded India, since you don’t seem particularly bright and have a very weak grasp of history.

Oh I’m so sorry that u wasted your time writing this article but it’s all wrong you poor thing. I’ll fix it for you quickly because it would take me all day to do it in detail.

Unfortunately, none of those wars u mentioned were in the name if Christianity accept the defensive movement that was organised to stop the relentless onslaught of the conquering attacking Muslims. The this defensive movement was labeled “The crusades”.

570 wars were faught in the name of Islam Before the crusades happened. The Muslims conquered almost half the globe. Arabs came out of Saudi Arabia and pushed all the way through the cristian Middle East and converted it all to Islam and then accross the seas and Into Spain and Europe where the Christians ordered the defensive crusades to push the Muslims back.
7 crusades in total.
570 Islamic Jihad Crusades before the first ever crusade!

Hasn’t been a crusade in the name if Christ since!

Islams crusades have never stopped. The jihad continues to this very day.

The death till caused by Muslims in the name of Islam in the billions.

The death toll in the name of Christ is less than 5million.

And lastly

“Saying that 9/11 was a Muslim is like saying hitler was a Christian”

Lol 9/11 was done in the name of Islam
Hitler was political an power hungry and wasn’t even a religious man.

How does it feel to know that you are one of many that lack the intelligence to comprehend this post? That warning message above should have been a stop and think indicator. Yet it never seems to happen.

Calling most of the “great” wars Christian is positively absurd. They were nearly all secular. Hundreds of millions of people have been murdered in these wars and Christ had nothing to do with it. When there have been atrocities done in the name of Christ, they have been completely opposed to the teaching of Jesus unlike Muslim atrocities.